A scoping review characterizing "Choosing Wisely®" recommendations for breast cancer management

Evolving strategies for the routine follow-up of patients with early breast cancer and the impact of COVID-19: a survey of healthcare providers

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a shift from routine in-person follow-up for early breast cancer (EBC) to the increased use of virtual assessments. This survey explored healthcare providers' (HCPs) perceptions around current practices and goals of follow-up.

METHODS

Canadian HCPs who treat EBC were contacted via an anonymous survey. Participants provided perspectives on follow-up, current practices, and interest in clinical trials assessing follow-up strategies.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 73 HCPs including medical (n = 41/73, 56%), radiation (n = 13/73, 18%), and surgical oncologists (n = 13/73, 18%). Thirty-four percent (n = 25/73) of HCPs did not perform routine follow-up. Of the 48 (n = 48/73, 66%) who conducted in-person follow-up, it was typically 6-monthly for years 1-3, yearly until year 5, and then on-demand. Common reasons for follow-up visits were assessment of symptoms from endocrine therapy and for the detection of recurrent disease. HCPs felt routine follow-up with physical examination resulted in earlier detection of local (n = 16/48, 33%) and distant metastasis (n = 6/48, 12.5%). Forty-eight percent of HCPs felt that the transition to virtual visits would not impact either local or distant recurrence rates or overall survival. Sixty-nine percent (n = 33/48) will continue to follow patients with a combination of in-person and virtual appointments. Most respondents agreed that follow-up should be more individualized and risk adapted (n = 42/48, 87.5%). Most (62%, n = 29/47) expressed interest in performing trials assessing well follow-up strategies.

CONCLUSION

Virtual care will remain an integral part of routine follow-up. The effects of this on a range of patient outcomes should be explored in future trials.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for T3 Tumors in the Era of Precision Medicine-Biology Is Still King

Clinical T3 (cT3) breast cancer (BC) presents a challenge for achieving cosmetically acceptable breast conservation, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is commonly used for cytoreduction in these high-risk cancers. MammaPrint® risk-of-recurrence and BluePrint® molecular subtyping genomic signatures have demonstrated high accuracy in predicting chemotherapy benefits. Here, we examined the utility of MammaPrint/BluePrint for predicting pathological Complete Response (pCR) rates to NAC among 404 patients diagnosed with cT3 early-stage BC. The association of genomic subtype and clinical features with the likelihood of pCR was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. Differences in pCR rates between genomic risk categories were evaluated by a two-sided proportional z-test and stratified by nodal status. MammaPrint/BluePrint subtyping was associated with significantly higher odds ratios (ORs) for pCR in MammaPrint High-Risk/BluePrint Basal-Type (OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 1.15-8.19, p = 0.025) and HER2-Type (OR = 6.27, 95% CI: 2.19-19.38, p = 0.001) compared to BluePrint Luminal-Type. Of the 209 patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease, 6.7% achieved pCR, and MammaPrint High-Risk was associated with a significantly higher pCR rate (9.3%) compared to MammaPrint Low-Risk cancers (0%), regardless of nodal involvement (p = 0.036). These data show that for patients with MammaPrint Low-Risk, cT3 tumors are less likely to have clinically impactful cytoreduction from NAC, regardless of nodal involvement.

New Insight for Axillary De-Escalation in Breast Cancer Surgery: "SoFT Study" Retrospective Analysis

Background: The SOUND study demonstrated that an axillary de-escalation may be sufficient in locoregional and distant disease control in selected early breast cancer (EBC) patients. To establish any preoperative variables that may drive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) omission, a study named sentinel omission risk factor (SOFT) 1.23 was planned. Methods: A single-center retrospective study from a prospectively maintained database was designed, aiming at underlying preoperative prognostic factors involved in sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis (lymph node involvement (LN+) vs. negative lymph node (LN-) group). Secondary outcomes included surgical room occupancy analysis for SLNB in patients fulfilling the SOUND study inclusion criteria. The institutional ethical committee Area Territoriale Lazio 2 approved the study (n° 122/23). Results: Between 1 January 2022 and 30 June 2023, 160 patients were included in the study and 26 (%) were included in the LN+ group. Multifocality, higher cT stage, and larger tumor diameter were reported in the LN+ group (p = 0.020, p = 0.014, and 0.016, respectively). Tumor biology, including estrogen and progesterone receptors, and molecular subtypes showed association with the LN+ group (p < 0.001; p = 0.001; and p = 0.001, respectively). A total of 117 (73.6%) patients were eligible for the SOUND study and the potential operating room time saved was 2696.81 min. Conclusions: De-escalating strategies may rationalize healthcare activities. Multifactorial risk stratification may further refine the selection of patients who could benefit from SLNB omission.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on follow-up of patients with early breast cancer: A patient survey

PURPOSE

Despite limited evidence supporting its effectiveness, most guidelines recommend long-term, routinely scheduled in-person surveillance of patients with early breast cancer (EBC). The COVID-19 pandemic led to increased use of virtual care. This survey evaluated patient perspectives on follow-up care.

METHODS

Patients with EBC undergoing surveillance were surveyed about follow-up protocols, perceptions, and interest in clinical trials assessing different follow-up strategies.

RESULTS

Of 402 approached patients 270 completed the survey (response rate 67%). Median age 62.5 years (range 25-86) and median time since breast cancer diagnosis was 3.8 years (range < 1-33 years). Most (n = 148/244, 60%) were followed by more than one provider. Routine follow-ups with breast examination were mostly conducted by medical/radiation oncologists every 6 months (n = 110/236, 46%) or annually (n = 106/236, 44%). Participants felt routine follow-up was useful to monitor for recurrence, manage side effects of cancer treatment and to provide support/reassurance. Most participants felt regular follow-up care would detect recurrent cancer earlier (n = 214/255, 96%) and increase survival (n = 218/249, 88%). The COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of in-person visits for 54% of patients (n = 63/117). Patients were concerned this reduction of in-person visits would lead to later detection of both local (n = 29/63, 46%) and distant recurrences (n = 25/63, 40%). While many felt their medical and radiation oncologists were the most suited to provide follow-up care, 55% felt comfortable having their primary care provider (PCP) conduct surveillance. When presented with a scenario where follow-up has no effect on earlier detection or survival, 70% of patients still wanted routine in-person follow-up for reassurance (63%) with the goal of earlier recurrence detection (56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limited evidence of effectiveness of routine in-person assessment, patients continue to place importance on regularly scheduled in-person follow-up.

Omission of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: Historical context and future perspectives on a modern controversy

For older patients with clinically lymph node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen receptor-positive tumors and are treated with tamoxifen, randomized trials comparing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus no ALND show that the omission of ALND improves patient quality of life and has no adverse effects on mortality. These results have served to justify sentinel node biopsy (SNB) omission in selected older patients with breast cancer. More recently, clinical trials were launched to assess SNB omission in younger patients, with recurrence and survival as the primary outcomes of interest. Three important considerations serve as the basis for these ongoing trials. First, it is assumed that SNB omission will improve patient quality of life, although, to date, there is no level I evidence to support this assumption. Second, axillary surgery has never been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality, but it does reduce the risk of axillary recurrences, although adjuvant systemic therapy and radiotherapy also reduce these recurrence risks. Finally, nodal status is losing importance as a guide for adjuvant systemic therapy decision making because these decisions are now increasingly predicated on tumor biomarkers and gene profiling, but it is gaining importance for adjuvant radiotherapy decision making. Because quality-of-life considerations are the primary motivation for abandoning SNB, there is a need for randomized trials comparing SNB versus no SNB/no axillary surgery, with quality of life as the primary end point (level I evidence). Moreover, suitable alternatives to guide adjuvant radiotherapy decision making will require validation before SNB omission can be justified for patients of all ages who have clinically node-negative breast cancer. LAY SUMMARY: In this review article, the authors provide a brief historical overview of the role of axillary surgery in breast cancer management and discuss additional studies and ramifications that should be considered before abandoning the sentinel node biopsy (SNB) procedure. Specifically, there is a need for level I evidence demonstrating that omission of the SNB procedure will improve patient quality of life and a need to validate suitable alternatives to SNB as a guide for adjuvant radiotherapy decision making.