A Bilingual Readability Assessment of Online Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment Information.

INTRODUCTION: Presenting health information at a sixth-grade reading level is advised to accommodate the general public's abilities. Breast cancer (BC) is the second-most common malignancy in women, but the readability of online BC information in English and Spanish, the two most commonly spoken languages in the United States, is uncertain. METHODS: Three search engines were queried using: "how to do a breast examination," "when do I need a mammogram," and "what are the treatment options for breast cancer" in English and Spanish. Sixty websites in each language were studied and classified by source type and origin. Three readability frameworks in each language were applied: Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) for English, and Fernández-Huerta, Spaulding, and Spanish adaptation of SMOG for Spanish. Median readability scores were calculated, and corresponding grade level determined. The percentage of websites requiring reading abilities >sixth grade level was calculated. RESULTS: English-language websites were predominantly hospital-affiliated (43.3%), while Spanish websites predominantly originated from foundation/advocacy sources (43.3%). Reading difficulty varied across languages: English websites ranged from 5th-12th grade (Flesch Kincaid Grade Level/Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease: 78.3%/98.3% above sixth grade), while Spanish websites spanned 4th-10th grade (Spaulding/Fernández-Huerta: 95%/100% above sixth grade). SMOG/Spanish adaptation of SMOG scores showed lower reading difficulty for Spanish, with few websites exceeding sixth grade (1.7% and 0% for English and Spanish, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Online BC resources have reading difficulty levels that exceed the recommended sixth grade, although these results vary depending on readability framework. Efforts should be made to establish readability standards that can be translated into Spanish to enhance accessibility for this patient population.

Nodal Surgery for Patients ≥ 70 Undergoing Mastectomy for DCIS? Choose Wisely.

BACKGROUND: Routine sentinel lymphadenectomy (SLNB) for early-stage HR+/HER2- breast cancer in women ≥70 is discouraged by Choosing Wisely, but whether SLNB can be routinely omitted in women ≥70 with DCIS undergoing mastectomy is unclear. This study aims to evaluate rates of axillary surgery and nodal positivity (pN+) in this population to determine the impact of axillary surgery on treatment decisions. METHODS: Females ≥70 with DCIS undergoing mastectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database (2012-2020). The rate of upstaging to invasive cancer (≥pT1) or pN+ was assessed. Subset analyses were conducted for ER+ patients. Adjuvant therapies were evaluated among ≥pT1 patients after stratifying by nodal status. RESULTS: Of 9,030 patients, 1,896 (21%) upstaged to ≥pT1. Axillary surgery was performed in 86% of patients, predominantly sentinel lymphadenectomy (SLNB, 65%). Post hoc application of Choosing Wisely criteria demonstrated that 93% of the entire cohort and 97% of ER+ DCIS patients could have avoided axillary surgery. Nodal positivity was 0.3% among those who didn't upstage, and 12% among those upstaging to ≥pT1, with <2% having pN2-3 disease, irrespective of receptor subtype. Node-positive patients had higher adjuvant therapy usage, but there was no recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation for 71% and 66% of pN+ patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Axillary surgery can be omitted for most patients ≥70 undergoing mastectomy for ER+ DCIS, aligning with recommendations for invasive cancer, and omission can be considered in those with ER- disease. Future guidelines incorporating preoperative imaging, as in the SOUND trial, may aid in identifying patients benefiting from axillary surgery.

Should Palpable Nodes Be Exclusionary in Patients Who Are Otherwise Candidates for ACOSOG Z0011-Type Trials?

BACKGROUND: Palpable nodes were exclusionary in American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011, while SINODAR-ONE excluded those with positive axillary nodes by palpation and ultrasound. To determine whether clinical nodal status should be exclusionary in those fulfilling pathologic criteria for ACOSOG Z0011 and similar trials, this study analyzed the accuracy and implications of clinical nodal positivity. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years old with cT1-T2, cN0-cN1, M0 breast cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2019. Subset characteristics of cN1 and cN0 were compared with respect to final pathologic nodal status and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 57,823 patients identified, 77.0% were cT1 and 23.0% were cT2. Of the 93.9% of patients who were staged as cN0, 16.7% were pN1; of the remaining 6.1% staged as cN1, 9.6% were found to be pN0. Among cN1/pN0 patients, 14.9% underwent axillary dissection without sentinel node biopsy. There was no difference in adjusted OS for patients staged as cN0 versus cN1 who were found to be pN1 (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93-1.37, p = 0.22), a finding that persisted on subset analysis in those with two positive nodes (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.33, p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical nodal stage does not affect OS in pN1 patients. Clinical nodal assessment can both overstage patients and result in unnecessary axillary surgery. These data suggest that cN1 patients who are otherwise candidates for a Z0011-like paradigm should still be considered eligible. Their final candidacy should be determined by surgical lymph node pathology and not preoperative clinical status.

Lost in Translation: Multilingual Analysis of Online Breast Cancer Information.

INTRODUCTION: Patients use the internet to learn more about health conditions. Non-English-speaking patients may face additional challenges. The quality of online breast cancer information, the most common cancer in women, is uncertain. This study aims to examine the quality of online breast cancer information for English and non-English-speaking patients. METHODS: Three search engines were queried using the terms: "how to do a breast examination," "when do I need a mammogram," and "what are the treatment options for breast cancer" in English, Spanish, and Chinese. For each language, 60 unique websites were included and classified by type and information source. Two language-fluent reviewers evaluated website quality using the Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criteria (0-4) and the DISCERN tool (1-5), with higher scores representing higher quality. Scores were averaged for each language. Health On the Net code presence was noted. Inter-rater reliability between reviewers was assessed. RESULTS: English and Spanish websites most commonly originated from US sources (92% and 80%, respectively) compared to Chinese websites (33%, P < 0.001). The most common website type was hospital-affiliated for English (43%) and foundation/advocacy for Spanish and Chinese (43% and 45%, respectively). English websites had the highest and Chinese websites the lowest mean the Journal of American Medical Association (2.2 ± 1.4 versus 1.0 ± 0.8, P = 0.002) and DISCERN scores (3.5 ± 0.9 versus 2.3 ± 0.6, P < 0.001). Health On the Net code was present on 16 (8.9%) websites. Inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate to substantial agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of online information on breast cancer across all three languages is poor. Information quality was poorest for Chinese websites. Improvements to enhance the reliability of breast cancer information across languages are needed.

Should patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and one or two positive sentinel nodes undergo axillary dissection to determine candidacy for adjuvant abemaciclib?

BACKGROUND: The monarchE trial demonstrated improved outcomes with the use of adjuvant abemaciclib in patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer defined as ≥4 positive lymph nodes (+LNs) or one to three +LNs with one or more additional high-risk features (HRFs). The proportion of patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes (+SLNs) without HRFs who had ≥4 +LNs at the time of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND), and who therefore qualified for receipt of abemaciclib, was investigated. METHODS: Females with pathologically node-positive nonmetastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer stratified by the number of +SLNs and +LNs and the presence of one or more HRFs were identified from the National Cancer Database (2018-2019). The proportion of patients meeting the criteria for abemaciclib both before and after ALND was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 22,048 patients identified, 1578 patients underwent upfront surgery, had one or two +SLNs without HRFs, and went on to cALND. Only 213 (13%) of these patients had ≥4 +LNs; thus, cALND performed solely to determine abemaciclib candidacy would have constituted surgical overtreatment in 1365 patients (87%). When stratified by the number of +SLNs, only 10% of those with one +SLN and 24% of those with two +SLNs had ≥4 +LNs after cALND, which meets the criteria for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with one +SLN without HRFs are unlikely to have ≥4 +LNs and should not be subjected to the morbidity of ALND in order to inform candidacy for abemaciclib. An individualized multidisciplinary discussion should be undertaken about the risk:benefit ratio of ALND and abemaciclib for those with two +SLNs.

A tool to predict disparities in the timeliness of surgical treatment for breast cancer patients in the USA.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer outcomes are impaired by both delays and disparities in treatment. This study was performed to assess their relationship and to provide a tool to predict patient socioeconomic factors associated with risk for delay. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was reviewed between 2004 and 2017 for patients with non-metastatic breast cancer managed with upfront surgery. Times to treatment were measured from the date of diagnosis. Patient, tumor, and treatment factors were assessed with attention paid to sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: 514,187 patients remained after exclusions, with 84.3% White, 10.8% Black, 3.7% Asian, and Hispanics comprising 5.6% of the cohort. Medicaid and uninsured patients had longer mean adjusted time to surgery (≥ 46 days) versus private (36.7 days), Medicare (35.9 days), or other governmental insurance (39.8 days). After adjustment, Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were most impactful, adding 6.0 and 6.4 preoperative days, 10.9 and 11.5 days to chemotherapy, 11.1 and 9.1 days to radiation, and 12.5 and 8.9 days to endocrine therapy, respectively. Income, education, and insurance, among other factors, also affected delay. A nomogram, including race and sociodemographic factors, was created to predict the risk of preoperative delay. CONCLUSION:  Significant disparities exist in timeliness of care for factors, including but not limited to, race and ethnicity. Although exact causes cannot be discerned, these data indicate population subsets whose intervals of care risk being longer than those specified by national quality standards. The nomogram created here may help direct resources to those at highest risk of incurring a treatment delay.

The Impact of Premastectomy Versus Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Outcomes in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is being increasingly performed over subpectoral reconstruction because of the reduced invasiveness of the procedure, postoperative pain, and risk of animation deformity. Radiation therapy is a well-known risk factor for complications in implant-based breast reconstruction. The effect of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiation therapy on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction has not been well-defined. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiation therapy on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with inferior dermal flap and acellular dermal matrix performed by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2019. Demographic, clinical and operative data were reviewed and recorded. Outcomes were assessed by comparing rates of capsular contracture, infection, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, rippling, implant loss, local recurrence and metastatic disease, between patients receiving premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation therapy and nonradiated patients. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients (592 breasts) underwent prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Twenty-six patients (28 breasts) received premastectomy radiation, 45 patients (71 breasts) received postmastectomy radiation, and 305 patients (493 breasts) did not receive radiation therapy. Patients with premastectomy radiation had higher rates of seroma (14.3% vs 0.2%), minor infection (10.7% vs 1.2%), implant loss (21.4% vs 3.4%) and local recurrence (7.1% vs 1.0%), compared with nonradiated patients (P < 0.05). Patients with postmastectomy radiation had higher rates of major infection (8.4% vs 2.4%), capsular contracture (19.7% vs 3.2%), implant loss (9.9% vs 3.4%), and local recurrence (5.6% vs 1.0%) when compared with nonradiated patients (P < 0.03). Outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction were comparable between premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation patients, respectively, with regard to major infection (7.1% vs 8.4%), dehiscence (3.6% vs 1.4%), major mastectomy skin flap necrosis (7.1% vs 2.8%), capsular contracture (10.7% vs 19.7%), implant loss (21.4% vs 9.9%), and local recurrence (7.1% vs 5.6%) (P ≥ 0.184). However, premastectomy radiation patients had a higher rate of seroma compared with postmastectomy radiation patients (14.3% vs 0%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In prepectoral implant breast reconstruction, premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation therapy were associated with higher rates of infection and implant loss compared with nonradiated patients. Postmastectomy radiation was associated with a higher rate of capsular contracture compared with nonradiated patients, and a comparable rate of capsular contracture compared with premastectomy radiation therapy patients. Premastectomy radiation was associated with a higher rate of seroma compared with postmastectomy radiation and nonradiated patients.

Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) on outcomes after prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with local deepithelialized dermal flap and acellular dermal matrix (ADM). METHODS: From 2010 to 2017, 274 patients (426 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction. In this group, 241 patients (370 breasts) were not exposed to PMRT, whereas 45 patients (56 breasts) were exposed to PMRT. Of 100 patients (163 breasts) who underwent partial subpectoral reconstruction, 87 (140 breasts) were not exposed to PMRT, whereas 21 patients (23 breasts) were exposed. The outcomes were assessed by comparing complication rates between the pre- and subpectoral groups. RESULTS: A higher rate of capsular contracture was found for the prepectoral patients with PMRT than for those without PMRT (16.1 vs 3.5%; p = 0.0008) and for the subpectoral patients with PMRT than for those without PMRT (52.2 vs 2.9%; p = 0.0001). The contracture rate was three times higher for the subpectoral patients with PMRT than for the prepectoral patients with PMRT (52.2 vs 16.1%; p = 0.0018). In addition, 10 (83.3%) of 12 cases with capsular contracture in the subpectoral cohort that received PMRT were Baker grades 3 or 4 compared with only 2 (22.2%) of 9 cases of the prepectoral group with PMRT (p = 0.0092). CONCLUSIONS: The patients undergoing subpectoral breast reconstruction who received PMRT had a capsular contracture rate three times greater with more severe contractures (Baker grade 3 or 4) than the patients receiving PMRT who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Are amended surgical pathology reports getting to the correct responsible care provider?

OBJECTIVES: Amended reports (AmRs) need to follow patients to treating physicians, to avoid erroneous management based on the original diagnosis. This study was undertaken to determine if AmRs followed the patient appropriately. METHODS: AmRs with diagnostic changes and discrepancies between ordering and treating physicians were tracked. Chart reviews, electronic medical report (EMR) reviews, and interviews were conducted to establish receipt of the AmR by the correct physician. RESULTS: Seven of 60 AmRs had discrepancies between the ordering and treating physicians, all with malignant diagnoses. The AmR was present in the treating physician's chart in only one case. Ordering physicians indicated that AmRs were not forwarded to treating physicians when corrected results arrived after patient referral, under the assumption that the new physician was automatically forwarded pathology updates. No harm was documented in any of our cases. In one case with a significant amendment, the correct information was entered in the patient chart based on a tumor board discussion. A review of two electronic health record systems uncovered significant shortcomings in each delivery system. CONCLUSIONS: AmRs fail to follow the patient's chain of referrals to the correct care provider, and EMR systems lack the functionality to address this failure and alert clinical teams of amendments.