Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer care is becoming increasingly complex, and patients with breast cancer are increasingly aware of the different treatment options, resulting in requests for second opinions (SOs). The current study investigates the impact of breast cancer SOs on final diagnosis and treatment in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI) using a newly designed Breast Cancer Second Opinion (BCSO) classification system. METHODS: Patients who visited the NCI for an SO between October 2015 and September 2016 were included. Demographics, diagnostics, and treatment proposals were compared between first and SO. Discrepancy was categorized using our BCSO classification system, categorizing SOs into (1) noncomparable, (2) identical, and (3) minor or (4) major discrepancy. RESULTS: The majority of SOs (n = 591) were patient initiated (90.7%). A total of 121 patients underwent treatment prior to their SO, leaving 470 patients for assessment of discrepancies according to our BCSO classification system. More than 45% of these SOs resulted in at least one discrepancy, with comparable rates for physician- and patient-initiated SOs (42.5% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.708). Significantly more discrepancies were observed in patients with additional imaging (51.3% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.002) and biopsies (53.7% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.005). Almost 60% of all discrepancies were categorized as major (neoadjuvant systemic treatment instead of primary surgery, breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, and proposing postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show substantial differences in diagnostic and treatment options in breast cancer patients visiting the Netherlands Cancer Institute for an SO, thereby emphasizing more consensus for the indications of these treatment modalities.

[Prioritising breast cancer care during the corona crisis]. / Prioritering van borstkankerzorg tijdens coronacrisis.

Over the past few months, regular care has been postponed where possible in order to increase the healthcare capacity for COVID-19 patients. The pressure imposed on the healthcare system by the new coronavirus has led to the need for the prioritising of breast cancer care. Several professional scientific and medical organisations have published proposals to prioritise oncological care. Due to the poor prognosis, care for patients with progressive disease during neoadjuvant systemic therapy and a triple negative, may not be postponed. In certain groups of patients, including those with ductal carcinoma in situ or an endocrine sensitive tumour, treatment may be postponed or modified, although with certain reservations.At the initiative of the NationaalBorstkankerOverleg Nederland, prospective data are currently being collected in order to gain more insight into the impact of COVID-19 on breast cancer care.

A systematic review on surgical treatment of primary epigastric hernias.

OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we evaluated all literature reporting on the surgical treatment of primary epigastric hernias, primarily focusing on studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair, and mesh reinforcement and suture repair. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Embase.com, PubMed and the Cochrane Library up to 24 April 2019. This review explicitly excluded literature on incisional hernias, ventral hernias not otherwise specified, and isolated (para)umbilical hernias. Primary outcome measures of interest were early and late postoperative complications. RESULTS: We obtained a total of 8516 articles and after a strict selection only seven retrospective studies and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) on treatment of primary epigastric hernia were included. In one study (RCT) laparoscopic repair led to less postoperative pain (VAS) compared to open repair (3.6 versus 2.4, p < 0.001). No significant differences in early postoperative complications and recurrences were observed. Mesh reinforcement was associated with lower recurrence rates than suture repair in two studies (2.2% versus 5.6%, p = 0.001 and 3.1% versus 14.7%, p = 0.0475). This result was not sustained in all studies. No differences were observed in early postoperative complications after mesh or suture repair. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated that studies investigating surgical treatment of primary epigastric hernias are scarce. The best available evidence suggests that mesh reinforcement in primary epigastric hernia repair possibily leads to less recurrences and that laparoscopic repair leads to less postoperative pain. Due to the high risk of selection bias of included studies and heterogenic study populations, no clear recommendations can be conducted. High-quality studies with well-defined patient groups and clear endpoints, primarily focusing on primary epigastric hernias, are mandatory.