Saving the Male Breast: A Systematic Literature Review of Breast-Conservation Surgery for Male Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Male breast cancer (MBC) management is extrapolated from female BC. Mastectomy remains the most frequently used surgical procedure for male breast cancer (MBC). We performed a literature review to assess the use of breast-conservation (BCS) in MBC as well as outcomes following BCS. METHODS: A systematic literature was performed, and articles screened to identify studies that measured overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), or local recurrence (LR) in patients undergoing BCS. Weighted averages based on study size were performed for LR, DFS, and 5-year OS. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria with male breast surgery cases, and 859 (14.7%) underwent BCS. The mean follow-up time was 53 months, and mean age was 62.6 years, with stage II as the most common presentation. Two studies reported that 50-71.4% of patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy, and four studies reported axillary lymph node dissection in 14.3-100%. Five studies reported on adjuvant radiation therapy in 12.0-100% of total patients undergoing BCS. Four studies reported use of hormonal therapy in 73.8-100% of patients. Four studies reported use of chemotherapy in 25-66.7% of patients. Seven studies reported LR among 116 patients, with a weighted average of 9.9%. Three studies reported on DFS in 14 patients, with a weighted average 85.6%. Two studies report OS in 143 patients with a weighted average of 84.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Breast conservation may be considered a safe alternative in the surgical treatment of MBC. Future research should focus on better standardization of local therapy for MBC and improved reporting of outcomes.

Patient-level costs in margin re-excision for breast-conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND: High rates of reoperation following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for positive margins are associated with costs to healthcare providers. The aim was to assess the quality of evidence on reported re-excision costs and compare the direct patient-level costs between patients undergoing successful BCS versus reoperations after BCS. METHODS: The study used data from women who had BCS with or without reoperation at a single institution between April 2015 and March 2016. A systematic review of health economic analysis in BCS was conducted and scored using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Financial data were retrieved using the Patient-Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) for patients. Exchange rates used were: US $1 = £0·75, £1 = €1·14 and US $1 = €0·85. RESULTS: The median QHES score was 47 (i.q.r. 32·5-79). Only two of nine studies scored in the upper QHES quartile (score at least 75). Costs of initial lumpectomy and reoperation were in the range US $1234-11786 and $655-9136 respectively. Over a 12-month interval, 153 patients had definitive BCS and 59 patients underwent reoperation. The median cost of reoperations after BCS (59 patients) was £4511 (range 1752-18 019), representing an additional £2136 per patient compared with BCS without reoperation (P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: The systematic review demonstrated variation in methodological approach to cost estimates and a paucity of high-quality cost estimate studies for reoperations. Extrapolating local PLICS data to a national level suggests that getting BCS right first time could result in substantial savings.

Best-practice care pathway for improving management of mastitis and breast abscess.

BACKGROUND: Surgical subspecialization has resulted in mastitis and breast abscesses being managed with unnecessary admission to hospital, prolonged inpatient stay, variable antibiotic prescribing, incision and drainage rather than percutaneous aspiration, and loss to specialist follow-up. The objective was to evaluate a best-practice algorithm with the aim of improving management of mastitis and breast abscesses across a multisite NHS Trust. The focus was on uniformity of antibiotic prescribing, ultrasound assessment, admission rates, length of hospital stay, intervention by aspiration or incision and drainage, and specialist follow-up. METHODS: Management was initially evaluated in a retrospective cohort (phase I) and subsequently compared with that in two prospective cohorts after introduction of a breast abscess and mastitis pathway. One prospective cohort was analysed immediately after introduction of the pathway (phase II), and the second was used to assess the sustainability of the quality improvements (phase III). The overall impact of the pathway was assessed by comparing data from phase I with combined data from phases II and III; results from phases II and III were compared to judge sustainability. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included in phase I, 61 in phase II and 80 in phase III. The management pathway and referral pro forma improved compliance with antibiotic guidelines from 34 per cent to 58·2 per cent overall (phases II and III) after implementation (P = 0·003). The improvement was maintained between phases II and III (54 and 61 per cent respectively; P = 0·684). Ultrasound assessment increased from 38 to 77·3 per cent overall (P < 0·001), in a sustained manner (75 and 79 per cent in phases II and III respectively; P = 0·894). Reductions in rates of incision and drainage (from 8 to 0·7 per cent overall; P = 0·007) were maintained (0 per cent in phase II versus 1 per cent in phase III; P = 0·381). Specialist follow-up improved consistently from 43 to 95·7 per cent overall (P < 0·001), 92 per cent in phase II and 99 per cent in phase III (P = 0·120). Rates of hospital admission and median length of stay were not significantly reduced after implementation of the pathway. CONCLUSION: A standardized approach to mastitis and breast abscess reduced undesirable practice variation, with sustained improvements in process and patient outcomes.

The importance of a medical chaperone: a quality improvement study exploring the use of a note stamp in a tertiary breast surgery unit.

OBJECTIVES: The project aim was to determine current use and documentation of medical chaperones within a major breast service unit. It explored ways of improving adherence to professional guidelines concerning chaperones. SETTING: The single centre quality improvement project was completed in a tertiary breast service unit in North West London. It was a three-stage project with initial audit in October 2013, 1st postintervention cycle in November 2013 and 2nd postintervention cycle in October 2014. PARTICIPANTS: In each study cycle, data were collected from entries in clinic notes until at least 155 encounters with documented clinical examination were analysed. All notes were of female patients. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Intervention 1st cycle: presentation and discussion of chaperone guidelines alongside reminder posters and introduction of note stamp. (2) Intervention 2nd cycle: note stamp alone. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Documentation of chaperone offer, documentation of patient preference regarding chaperone, identifier (name or signature) of chaperone present and gender of examining clinician. RESULTS: In the 1st postintervention cycle, 69.95% documentation of chaperone offer was recorded, p<0.001, CI (59.04% to 80.76%). This result was replicated in the 2nd postintervention cycle a year later with 74.86% documentation of chaperone offer recorded, p<0.001, CI (66.41% to 83.31%). The 4.91% difference was insignificant; p=0.294, CI (14.03% to 4.21%). CONCLUSIONS: The authors suggest that a proforma approach to medical chaperones is an effective means of ensuring adherence to best practice guidelines. A stamp, or similar, that can be embedded into documentation structure is an effective example of such an approach. Improved documentation allows any problems with adherence to guidelines to be more easily identified, helping to ensure the safeguarding of patients and staff involved in intimate examinations.