Contrast-enhanced mammography in the assessment of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment.

PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) as an alternative to breast MRI for the evaluation of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT). METHODS: This prospective study enrolled consecutive women undergoing NAT for breast cancer from July 2017-July 2019. Breast MRI and CEM exams performed after completion of NAT were read independently by two breast radiologists. Residual disease and lesion size on MRI and CEM recombined (RI) and low-energy images (LEI) were compared. Histopathology was considered the reference standard. Statistical analysis was performed using McNemar's and Leisenring's tests. Multiple comparison adjustment was made using Bonferroni procedure. Lesion sizes were correlated using Kendall's tau coefficient. RESULTS: There were 110 participants with 115 breast cancers. Residual disease (invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ) was detected in 83/115 (72%) lesions on pathology, 71/115 (62%) on MRI, 55/115 (48%) on CEM RI, and 75/115 (65%) on CEM LEI. When using multiple comparison adjustment, no significant differences were detected between MRI combined with CEM LEI and CEM RI combined with CEM LEI, in terms of accuracy (MRI: 77%, CEM: 72%; p ≥ 0.99), sensitivity (MRI: 88%, CEM: 81%; p ≥ 0.99), specificity (MRI: 47%, CEM: 50%; p ≥ 0.99), PPV (MRI: 81%, CEM: 81%; p ≥ 0.99), or NPV (MRI: 60%, CEM: 50%; p ≥ 0.99). Size correlation between pathology and both MRI combined with CEM LEI and CEM RI combined with CEM LEI was moderate: τ = 0. 36 vs 0.33 (p ≥ 0.99). CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced mammography is an acceptable alternative to breast MRI for the detection of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment.

Timing of Chemotherapy and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Receipt of chemotherapy is associated with decreased satisfaction after breast surgery, but whether timing as adjuvant versus neoadjuvant (NAC) affects patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unclear. We examined associations between chemotherapy timing and PROs after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (M-IR). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I-III breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy between January 2017 and December 2019, we compared satisfaction with breasts (SABTR) and chest physical well-being (PWB-CHEST) between chemotherapy groups in BCS and M-IR cohorts. Median SABTR and PWB-CHEST scores (scale 0-100) were compared between chemotherapy groups at baseline and for 3 years postoperatively. Factors associated with SABTR and PWB-CHEST at 1 and 2 years were assessed with multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Overall, 640 patients had BCS and 602 had M-IR; 210 (33%) BCS patients and 294 (49%) M-IR patients had NAC. Following BCS, SABTR was higher than baseline at all postoperative timepoints, whereas 3-year SABTR remained similar to baseline following M-IR, independent of chemotherapy timing. In both surgical cohorts, PWB-CHEST was lowest after NAC at 6 months compared with baseline but was similar to adjuvant counterparts by 3 years. NAC was not a statistically significant predictor of SABTR or PWB-CHEST in either surgical cohort on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with breast cancer who require chemotherapy, neoadjuvant versus adjuvant timing does not impact long-term PROs in this study. These findings may inform shared decision making regarding the sequence of treatment in patients with operable disease.

How Much Pain Will I Have After Surgery? A Preoperative Nomogram to Predict Acute Pain Following Mastectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Acute postoperative pain affects time to opioid cessation and quality of life, and is associated with chronic pain. Effective screening tools are needed to identify patients at increased risk of experiencing more severe acute postoperative pain, and who may benefit from multimodal analgesia and early pain management referral. In this study, we develop a nomogram to preoperatively identify patients at high risk of moderate-severe pain following mastectomy. METHODS: Demographic, psychosocial, and clinical variables were retrospectively assessed in 1195 consecutive patients who underwent mastectomy from January 2019 to December 2020 and had pain scores available from a post-discharge questionnaire. We examined pain severity on postoperative days 1-5, with moderate-severe pain as the outcome of interest. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with moderate-severe pain in a training cohort of 956 patients. The final model was determined using the Akaike information criterion. A nomogram was constructed using this model, which also included a priori selected clinically relevant variables. Internal validation was performed in the remaining cohort of 239 patients. RESULTS: In the training cohort, 297 patients reported no-mild pain and 659 reported moderate-severe pain. High body mass index (p = 0.042), preoperative Distress Thermometer score ≥4 (p = 0.012), and bilateral surgery (p = 0.003) predicted moderate-severe pain. The resulting nomogram accurately predicted moderate-severe pain in the validation cohort (AUC =  0.735). CONCLUSIONS: This nomogram incorporates eight preoperative variables to provide a risk estimate of acute moderate-severe pain following mastectomy. Preoperative risk stratification can identify patients who may benefit from individually tailored perioperative pain management strategies and early postoperative interventions to treat pain and assist with opioid tapering.

Association Between Local Anesthetic Dosing, Postoperative Opioid Requirement, and Pain Scores After Lumpectomy and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy with Multimodal Analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia (MMA) during breast surgery reduces postoperative pain and opioid requirements, but the relative contribution of local anesthetic dosing as a component of MMA is not well defined among patients undergoing lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified consecutive patients who underwent lumpectomy and SLNB with MMA from 1/2019 to 4/2020. Univariable and multivariable linear and logistic regression were used to examine associations between local anesthetics, opioid requirements in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and pain scores in the PACU and on postoperative day (POD) 1. RESULTS: In total, 1603 patients [median tumor size, 14 mm (interquartile range 8-20 mm)] were included. The median PACU opioid requirement was 0 morphine milligram equivalents (interquartile range 0-5). PACU maximum pain was none or mild in 58% of patients and moderate to severe in 42%; among 420 survey respondents, 56% reported no or mild pain and 44% reported moderate to severe pain on POD 1. On multivariable analysis that adjusted for routine components of MMA, increasing doses of 0.5% bupivacaine were associated with reduced PACU opioid requirements (ß -0.04, 95% confidence interval -0.07 to -0.01, p = 0.011) and lower odds of moderate to severe pain (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.97-0.99, p < 0.001). Local anesthetics were not associated with pain scores on POD 1. CONCLUSIONS: Higher amounts of local anesthetics reduce acute postoperative pain and opioid requirement after lumpectomy and SLNB. Maximizing dosing within weight-based limits is a low-risk, cost-effective pain control strategy that can be used in diverse practice settings.

Postdischarge Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Are not Associated with Risk of Hematoma after Lumpectomy and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy with Multimodal Analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are increasingly used in ambulatory breast surgery. The risk of hematoma associated with intraoperative ketorolac is low, but whether concomitant routine discharge with NSAIDs increases the risk of hematoma is unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who underwent lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), and compared the 30-day risk of hematoma between patients discharged with opioids (opioid period: January 2018-August 2018) and patients discharged with NSAIDs with or without opioids (NSAID period: January 2019-April 2020). The association between study period and hematoma risk was assessed using multivariable models. Covariates included intraoperative ketorolac, home aspirin, and race/ethnicity. During the NSAID period, a survey was used to assess analgesic consumption on postoperative days 1-5. RESULTS: In total, 2724 patients were identified: 858 (31%) in the opioid period and 1866 (69%) in the NSAID period. In the NSAID period, 867 (46%) received NSAIDs and opioids, and 999 (54%) received NSAIDs only. Receipt of intraoperative ketorolac was higher in the NSAID period (78 vs. 64%, P < 0.001). The risks of any hematoma (4.1 vs. 3.6%, P = 0.6) and reoperation for bleeding (0.5 vs. 0.6%, P = 0.8) were similar between groups. Study period was not associated with hematoma risk (odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.56-1.35, P = 0.5). Among survey respondents (41%), nonopioid analgesic consumption did not increase after opioids were removed from the discharge regimen (median, 6 pills/group, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs are associated with a low risk of hematoma after lumpectomy and SLNB, and should be prescribed instead of opioids, unless contraindicated.

Patterns of invasive recurrence among patients originally treated for ductal carcinoma in situ by breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is more common than after mastectomy, but it is unclear if patterns of invasive recurrence vary by initial surgical therapy. Among patients with invasive recurrence after treatment for DCIS, we compared patterns of first recurrence between those originally treated with BCS vs. mastectomy. METHODS: From 2000 to 2016, women with an invasive recurrence occurring ≥ 6 months after initial treatment for DCIS were retrospectively identified. Clinicopathologic features and adjuvant treatment of the initial DCIS, as well as characteristics of first invasive recurrences, were compared between patients who had undergone BCS vs. mastectomy. RESULTS: 452 patients with an invasive recurrence after surgery for DCIS were identified: 367 patients (81%) had initially undergone BCS and 85 patients (19%) mastectomy. Patients originally treated with mastectomy were younger and were more likely to have had high grade, necrosis, and multifocal or multicentric DCIS (p < 0.001) compared with the BCS group. A higher proportion of invasive recurrences were local after BCS (93%; 343/367), whereas 88% (75/85) of recurrences after mastectomy were regional or distant (p < 0.001). The median time to first invasive recurrence was not different between surgical groups (BCS: 6.4 years vs. mastectomy: 5.5 years; p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Among women who experienced a first invasive recurrence after treatment for DCIS, those who had originally undergone mastectomy more commonly presented with advanced disease compared to those treated with BCS, likely related to the absence of the breast and the higher risk profile of their initial DCIS.

Routine Opioid Prescriptions Are Not Necessary After Breast Excisional Biopsy or Lumpectomy Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics are overprescribed after surgery. In August 2018, the authors replaced routine discharge opioid prescription with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for patients who had a lumpectomy or excisional biopsy (lump/ex). This study compared patient-reported post-discharge pain scores for patients treated before and after the change in routine discharge medication. METHODS: Patients were categorized based on treatment before and after a change in discharge medication as follows: study period 1 (routine opioids), study period 2 (routine NSAID). Pain severity was assessed with an electronic survey on postoperative days (PODs) 1 to 5. Multivariable generalized estimating equations tested the association between pain severity and discharge in the first versus the second study period. RESULTS: Lump/ex was performed for 1606 patients between December 2017 and June 2019. Of these patients, 789 (49%) reported pain scores and were analyzed (328 in study period 1, 461 in study period 2). Opioid prescription at discharge decreased from 96% in period 1 to 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11-18%) in period 2. Only 1% of the patients discharged with NSAID were later prescribed an opioid. The maximum reported pain score on any POD for all the patients was severe for 30 patients (3.8%), moderate for 217 patients (28%), mild for 430 patients (54%), and none for 112 patients (14%). The estimated risk for moderate or greater pain on POD 1 was 36% for period 1 and 34% for period 2. The proportion of patients reporting moderate or greater pain was nonsignificantly lower for the patients treated in period 2 (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI 0.67-1.22; P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing lump/ex, a clinically meaningful difference in reported post-discharge pain scores can be excluded with a change to routine NSAID at discharge. Patients undergoing lump/ex should not be routinely discharged with opioids.

Changing the Default: A Prospective Study of Reducing Discharge Opioid Prescription after Lumpectomy and Sentinel Node Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Whether routinely prescribed opioids are necessary for pain control after discharge among lumpectomy/sentinel node biopsy (Lump/SLNB) patients is unclear. We hypothesize that Lump/SLNB patients could be discharged without opioids, with a failure rate < 10%. This study prospectively examines outcomes after changing standard discharge prescription from an opioid/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) to NSAID/acetaminophen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Standard discharge pain medication orders included opioids in the first 3-month study period and were changed to NSAID/acetaminophen in the second 3-month period. Patient-reported medication consumption and pain scores were collected by post-discharge survey. Frequency of discharge with opioid, NSAID/acetaminophen failure rate, opioid use, and pain scores were examined. RESULTS: From May to October 2019, 663 patients had Lump/SLNB: 371 in the opioid study period and 292 in the NSAID period. In the opioid period, 92% (342/371) of patients were prescribed an opioid at discharge; of 142 patients who documented opioid use on the survey, 86 (61%) used zero tablets. Among 56 (39%) patients who used opioids, the median number taken by POD 5 was 4. After the change to NSAID/acetaminophen, rates of opioid prescription decreased to 14% (41/292). The NSAID/acetaminophen failure rate was 2% (5/251). Among survey respondents, there was no significant difference in the maximum reported pain scores (POD 1-5) between the opioid period and the NSAID period (p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: In Lump/SLNB patients, a change to default discharge with NSAID/acetaminophen resulted in a 78% absolute reduction in opioid prescription, with a failure rate of 2% and no difference in patient-reported pain scores. Most Lump/SLNB patients can be discharged with NSAID/acetaminophen.

B-Sure: a randomized pilot trial of an interactive web-based decision support aid versus usual care in average-risk breast cancer patients considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

The use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is increasing among breast cancer patients who are at average or "sporadic" risk for contralateral breast cancer. Because CPM provides no survival benefit for these patients, it is not medically recommended for them. Decision support aids may facilitate more informed, higher quality CPM decision. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of B-Sure, an online decision support aid to facilitate informed decisions regarding CPM, and to compare the impact of B-Sure in increasing CPM knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing preparedness to make the CPM decision among breast cancer patients at sporadic risk who are considering CPM. Ninety-three patients with unilateral, nonhereditary breast cancer considering CPM completed a baseline survey, were randomized to receive B-Sure or Usual care, and completed a 4-week follow-up survey assessing decisional conflict, preparedness to make the CPM decision, and CPM knowledge as well as self-efficacy, perceived risk, worry, CPM motivations, and the surgical decision. Study participation was high. B-Sure was viewed by almost 80% of the participants and was evaluated positively. At follow-up, patients assigned to B-Sure reported significantly higher clarity regarding the personal values relevant to the CPM decision and higher knowledge about CPM. B-Sure had smaller effects on other aspects of decisional conflict. B-Sure improved CPM knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. Patients considering CPM may benefit from an online decision support aid, but may be sensitive to approaches that they perceive as biased against CPM.

George Peters Award: How does breast-specific gamma imaging affect the management of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer?

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the number of patients with known breast cancer who were found to have an additional, mammographically occult lesion detected on breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI). METHODS: An institutional review board-approved review of all patients who underwent BSGI at Beth Israel Medical Center from 2006 to 2008 was performed. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients underwent BSGI for newly diagnosed breast cancer. Of these, 18 had an additional abnormality, and 17 were biopsied. There were 4 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1 invasive lobular carcinoma, 1 ductal carcinoma in situ, 1 lobular carcinoma in situ, 2 papillomas, and 8 benign biopsies. One patient proceeded directly to mastectomy and an area of ductal carcinoma in situ was found, corresponding to the BSGI. CONCLUSIONS: In our study group, 22% of patients had a surgical change in management based on BSGI findings. BSGI detected additional carcinoma in 9%. BSGI plays an important role in the clinical management of patients with known breast cancer.

Outcome of multiple-wire localization for larger breast cancers: do multiple wires translate into additional imaging, biopsies, and recurrences?

BACKGROUND: Breast conservation is possible in breast cancer patients whose mammographic lesions are large enough to require multiple localizing wires for excision. METHODS: A retrospective review of 112 patients who underwent multiple-wire and 160 controls who underwent single-wire lumpectomy for breast cancer. Rates of in-breast recurrence, metastasis, and additional imaging and biopsy procedures were calculated. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 24 months. One multiple-wire and 2 single-wire patients developed in-breast recurrences (P = .84). No distant metastases developed among the multiple-wire patients. Additional follow-up imaging was obtained in 29% of multiple-wire and 22% of single-wire cases (P = .1). Seven (6%) of the multiple-wire and 11 (6%) of the single-wire cases underwent biopsy (P = .94). CONCLUSIONS: We found no increased risk of early local recurrence, metastasis, or additional imaging or biopsies in patients requiring multiple-wire localization for lumpectomy. Breast conservation should be considered a safe option even for patients with mammographically extensive lesions.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy: lessons from ex vivo procedures.

Moderate size series have reported successful nipple-sparing mastectomy using a variety of surgical techniques. This study aimed to understand which aspects of these techniques are safe, necessary, and successful. Eight skin-sacrificing mastectomy specimens were used as ex vivo models of nipple-sparing mastectomy. After inking the resection margins of the specimen, the skin ellipse was elevated in the subcutaneous plane using a scalpel. The retroareolar breast tissue was taken as a margin specimen. The nipple was inverted and the nipple core removed. The hollowed-out nipple remnant (which would have remained with the patient in a true nipple-sparing mastectomy) was submitted for confirmatory histopathologic analysis. Precise identification of the duct margin directly beneath the nipple proved difficult once the duct bundle had been divided. Successful retroareolar margin identification was achieved by grasping the duct bundle with atraumatic forceps as soon as it became exposed. A cut made below and above the forceps resulted in a full cross-section of the duct bundle. Nipple core tissue was difficult to excise in one piece and cannot be oriented, thus complete evaluation of the specimen required examination of multiple levels. Histologic artifacts caused by freezing may be present in frozen sections of nipple core and retroareolar margin specimens; the impact of such changes must be considered when developing institutional protocols for this procedure. Evaluation of the hollowed-out nipple revealed that the inverted nipple must be substantially thinned to remove all ducts. Modification of technique resulted in more complete excision of duct tissue. This series of ex vivo procedures provides information that can be used to modify surgical and pathologic techniques for nipple-sparing mastectomy. When performing nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer, these measures may be advisable as complements to careful patient selection.

Outcomes of multiple wire localization for larger breast cancers: when can mastectomy be avoided?

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy is often recommended when mammography shows a breast cancer with extensive calcifications. We wished to determine whether the use of multiple localizing wires to guide lumpectomy in this setting was associated with increased rates of breast conservation. We also wanted to identify factors that predicted a poor chance of successful lumpectomy, to avoid multiple lumpectomy attempts in a patient who would ultimately require mastectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Records of 153 women with breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy for larger lesions that required multiple wire localization and 196 controls who required only single wire localization were reviewed retrospectively. The number of localizing wires, specimen volume, largest specimen dimension, number of surgical procedures, and rates of breast conservation were scored. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of patients requiring multiple wire localization had successful breast conservation, compared with 90% of those needing only single wire localization. Only 28% of multiple wire patients required more than 1 excision to achieve clear margins, compared with 36% of single wire patients (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Breast conservation is possible in the great majority of breast cancer patients whose mammographic lesions require multiple localizing wires for excision. The use of multiple wires can decrease the number of procedures required to obtain clear lumpectomy margins.