What Is the Utility of Routine Complete Blood Count, Liver Function Tests, and Chest X-ray in the Evaluation of Patients with Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer?

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest a selective workup of early-stage breast cancer with complete blood count (CBC) and liver function tests (LFTs) and no longer recommend chest X-ray (CXR) to screen for occult metastasis. We evaluated the utility of routine preoperative screening tests in patients with clinically node-negative (cN0) breast cancer. We identified 1611 patients with cN0 breast cancer treated at our institution between October 1998 and December 2015; 94.4 per cent of the patients underwent at least one preoperative screening test: 90.8 per cent CBC, 89.4 per cent LFTs, and 63.6 per cent CXR. Thirty-six per cent of CBCs, 13.1 per cent of LFTs, and 6.7 per cent of CXRs were abnormal. Abnormalities led to 17 CT scans, and one found an occult metastasis. Eleven patients (0.7%) were diagnosed with metastatic disease postoperatively, but only half had abnormal preoperative screening tests. Positive predictive values of preoperative CBC, LFTs, and CXR for occult metastasis are 1.3 per cent, 1.1 per cent, and 1.5 per cent, respectively. Preoperative screening in cN0 breast cancer is of low yield. Even when abnormalities are found, metastasis is present in less than 1 per cent of patients, and a normal study does not rule out metastasis. Routine preoperative determination is not warranted, and staging studies should be limited to patients with signs or symptoms.

Cutting Healthcare Costs with Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided Breast Lumpectomy.

BACKGROUND: Localization of nonpalpable breast lesions for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) remains highly variable and includes needle/wire localization (NL), radioactive seed localization, radar localization, and hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) lumpectomy. The superiority of HUG lumpectomy over NL has been demonstrated repeatedly in terms of safety, accuracy, low positive margin rates, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. In this study, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of HUG lumpectomy over NL for nonpalpable breast lesions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 569 patients who underwent lumpectomy at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences from May 2014 through December 2017. Lumpectomies were stratified by localization technique, i.e. NL versus HUG. A cost-savings estimate was determined for the HUG localization technique, and a total amount of dollars saved over the study period was calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 569 lumpectomies were performed: 501 (88.0%) via HUG and 68 (12.0%) via NL. Intraoperative ultrasound was used in 566 operations (99.5%). Of the lumpectomies performed by HUG, 190 lesions (33.4%) were visible only on mammogram or breast magnetic resonance imaging prior to diagnostic core needle biopsy (CNB). Cost estimates comparing HUG with NL demonstrated a cost savings of $497.00 per procedure, the cost of preoperative needle localization by a radiologist, and a total of $94,430.00 for the study period. CONCLUSION: In utilizing HUG lumpectomy, the initial CNB serves as the diagnostic and localization procedure, thus saving time and a painful second procedure on the day of operation. HUG lumpectomy is safe, accurate, reduces healthcare costs, and results in a better patient experience for the surgical removal of nonpalpable breast lesions.

Outcomes after Mastectomy and Lumpectomy in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Prospective studies have shown equal outcomes after mastectomy or breast conservation in patients with invasive breast cancer; however, many of these studies excluded elderly patients. We identified patients in their eighties and nineties with clinical stage 0 to II breast cancer undergoing mastectomy or lumpectomy with or without radiation from the prospective sentinel lymph node database at Wake Forest Baptist Health and analyzed their treatment and survival. Of 92 patients, 24 (26.1%) underwent mastectomy, 22 (23.9%) lumpectomy with radiation, and 46 (50.0%) lumpectomy alone. Significant differences were noted in tumor size (P = 0.018), nodal status (P = 0.013), and stage (P = 0.011) between the groups. Only 7.6 per cent of patients had chemotherapy, whereas 51.1 per cent took antiestrogen therapy. Recurrence occurred in 11 patients. In univariate analysis, overall survival did not differ by surgery. Age was the only factor that increased risk of death (HR = 1.19, P = 0.028). In this age group, neither tumor factors nor the type of local treatment significantly influenced overall survival. Octogenarians and nonagenarians with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery with or without radiation have equivalent survival to patients having a mastectomy.