Cryoablation Allows the Ultimate De-escalation of Surgical Therapy for Select Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Widespread use of screening mammography has allowed breast cancer to be detected at earlier stages. This allows for increased customization of treatment and less aggressive management. De-escalation of therapy plays an important role in decreasing treatment burden and improving patient quality of life. This report examines cryoablation as the next step in the surgical de-escalation of breast cancer. METHODS: Women with a diagnosis of clinically node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive (ER +), progesterone receptor-positive (PR +), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2 -) infiltrating ductal carcinomas 1.5 cm or smaller underwent ultrasound-guided cryoablation. Either the Visica 2 treatment system (before 2020) or the ProSense treatment system (since 2020) was used to perform the cryoablation. Patients received mammograms and ultrasounds at a 6 months follow-up visit, and magnetic resonance images at baseline, then at 1 year follow-up intervals. Adjuvant therapy decisions and disease status were recorded. RESULTS: This study enrolled 32 patients who underwent 33 cryoablation procedures (1 patient had bilateral cancer). One patient had a sentinel node biopsy in addition to clinical staging of the axilla. For all the patients, adjuvant endocrine therapy was recommended, and six patients (18.75%) received adjuvant radiation. Of the 32 patients, 20 (60.6%) have been followed up for 2 years or longer, with no residual or recurrent disease at the site of ablation. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation of the primary tumor foregoing sentinel node biopsy offers an oncologically safe and feasible minimally invasive office-based procedure option in lieu of surgery for patients with early-stage, low-risk breast cancer.

The Role of Cryoablation in Breast Cancer Beyond the Oncologic Control: COST and Breast-Q Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cryoablation has been established as a minimally invasive alternative to resection of early-stage breast cancer; however, there are no data on the cost and impact on patients' financial, psychosocial, sexual, physical, and cosmetic outcomes utilizing this approach. This study compares cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality-of-life factors in cryoablation versus resection. METHODS: Women with early-stage, low-risk infiltrating ductal carcinomas ≤ 1.5 cm underwent cryoablation or resection. Adjuvant therapy was provided according to tumor board recommendations. Direct and indirect costs were tracked for both groups. Financial toxicity and well-being outcome were measured by administering the Comprehensive Score of Financial Toxicity (COST) and BREAST-Q surveys, respectively, at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 34 eligible patients, 14 (41.1%) consented for cryoablation and 20 (58.8%) underwent resection. The median (centile) (range) follow-up was 35.0 (21.3) (15-50) months for cryoablation vs. 25 (20.8) (17-50) months for resection [p = 0.6479]. Mean (standard deviation) cost of care for cryoablation versus resection was $2221.70 (615.70) versus $16,896.50 (1332.40) [p < 0.0001], and median financial well-being scores for the cryoablation versus resection groups were 38.0 (34.5, 40.0) versus 10 (5.3, 14.0) [p < 0.0001]. Poor financial well-being was directly correlated with the cost of care [p < 0.0001]. Median psychosocial well-being scores were similar across both groups, however the cryoablation group had higher scores for physical [100 (100, 100) vs. 89 (79, 100); p = 0.0141], sexual [100 (91, 100) vs. 91 (87.5, 91); p = 0.0079], and cosmetic [100 (100, 100) vs. 88 (88, 100); p = 0.0171] outcomes. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation offers a cost-effective and quality-of-life advantage compared with resection for early-stage, low-risk breast cancer.

Cryoablation: A promising non-operative therapy for low-risk breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of cryoablation for early-stage low-risk breast cancer without tumor resection. METHODS: Women diagnosed with ER+, PR+, and HER2-infiltrating ductal carcinomas ≤1.5 cm were treated with cryoablation. The non-surgical procedure used a Visica® 2 Treatment System with ultrasound guidance for ablation of the tumor with a 1 cm margin. Patients were monitored at 6-month intervals by MRI, mammogram, and ultrasound. RESULTS: Twelve patients with unifocal breast cancer were treated with cryoablation for local control without follow-up tumor resection. All patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy, and none had radiation. The median follow-up was 28.5 (range = 4-41) months with 11 patients having at least one six-month follow-up. All imaging modalities showed complete ablation of target zone 11/11 (100%). Four patients (33.3%) have been followed up for ≥ 2 years with no local failure or residual disease. CONCLUSION: Cryoablation of early-stage low-risk (ER+, PR+, and HER2-) breast cancer is a safe alternative to surgery.

A decade of intraoperative ultrasound guided breast conservation for margin negative resection - Radioactive, and magnetic, and Infrared Oh My .

BACKGROUND: The oncologic goal of margin-negative breast conservation requires adequate localization of tumor. Intraoperative ultrasound remains most feasible but under-utilized method to localize the tumor and assess margins. METHODS: A prospectively maintained breast cancer database over a decade was queried for margin status in breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation. Techniques of tumor localization, margin re-excision and closest margins were analyzed. Rate of conversion to mastectomy was determined. RESULTS: Of the 945 breast cancer patients treated at a university-based Breast Center of Excellence between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2018, 149(15.8%) had ductal carcinoma in situ; 712(75.3%) had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 63(6.7%) had invasive lobular carcinoma. Clinical stage distribution was: T1 = 372(39.4%); T2 = 257(27.2%); T3 = 87(9.2%). Five hundred and eighty three (61.7%) patients underwent breast conservation. The median (25th -75th centile) closest margin was 6(2.5, 10.0) mm. Thirty five (6.0%) patients underwent margin re-excision, of which 9(25%) were converted to mastectomy. Tumor localization was achieved with ultrasound in 521(89.4%) patients and with wire localization in 62(10.6%) patients. The median (25th-75th centile) closest margin with wire localization was 5.0(2.0, 8.5) mm versus 5.0 (2.0, 8.0) mm with ultrasound guidance [p = 0.6635]. The re-excision rate with wire localization was 14.5% versus 4.9% with ultrasound guidance [p = 0.0073]. The unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) for margin revision in wire localized group compared with ultrasound was 3.2 (7.14, 1.42) [p = 0.0045]; multivariate adjusted OR (95%) was 4(9.09, 1.7) [p = 0.0013]. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance for localization of breast cancer remains the most effective option for margin negative breast conservation.

Jejuno-gastric intussusception: A case report of unusual cause of food intolerance after roux-En-Y gastric bypass.

INTRODUCTION: Morbid obesity is increasing worldwide as a result, weight loss procedures such as Roux- En-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are increasing as well. RYGB has multiple complications including intussusception, most of the cases are jejuno-jejunal. Only one case reported to be Jejuno-gastric intussusception (JGI) but through the remnant and not the gastro-jejunostomy anastomosis (GJ). CASE REPORT: A 50-year-old female presented to the emergency department complaining of diffuse abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Her surgical history is significant for an RYGB 17 years ago. Nausea and food intolerance were the most prominent symptoms. CT scan of the abdomen and upper GI series were normal. Only Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) showed JGI through GJ, with friable mucosa and a small gastro-gastric fistula. Patient underwent successful reconstruction of GJ and had no symptoms afterwards. CONCLUSION: JGI is a rare of cause of abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting after RYGB. Early diagnosis is crucial, a thorough work up is needed to make diagnosis of JGI including EGD. Revision of GJ anastomosis is necessary to address this phenomenon.