Impact of Consensus Guidelines by the Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery in Stages 1 and 2 Invasive Breast Cancer

Cost minimization in breast conserving surgery: a comparative study of radiofrequency spectroscopy and full cavity shave margins

BACKGROUND

In an effort to minimize positive margins and subsequent re-excision after breast conserving surgery (BCS), many providers and facilities have implemented either a Full Cavity Shave (FCS) approach or adding the MarginProbe Radiofrequency Spectroscopy System.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to create a functioning Pro-Forma for use by facilities and payers to evaluate and compare the cost savings of implementing FCS or MarginProbe based on personalized variable inputs.

METHODS

A decision tree demonstrating three possible surgical pathways, BCS, BCS + FCS, and BCS + MarginProbe was developed with clinical inputs for re-excision rate, mastectomy as 2nd surgery, rate of reconstruction, and rate of 3rd surgery derived by a literature review. A surgical pathway cost formula was created using the decision tree and financial inputs derived by utilizing the nation's largest database of privately billed health insurance claims and Medicare claims data (fairhealth.org). Using the surgical pathway formula and financial inputs, a customizable Pro-Forma was created for immediate cost savings analysis of BCS + FCS and BCS + Marginprobe using variable inputs. Costs are from the perspective of third-party payers.

RESULTS

Utilizing MarginProbe to reduce re-excisions for positive margins can be associated with better cost-savings than FCS due to the increased pathology processing costs by using an FCS approach. The reduction in re-excision provided by both FCS and MarginProbe offset their increased expense to various degrees with cost savings of each method improving as baseline re-excisions rates increase, until ultimately each may become cost-neutral or cost-prohibitive when compared to BCS alone. Our data suggest that in the privately insured population, MarginProbe provides a cost-savings over BCS alone when baseline re-excision rates are over 20% and that FCS becomes cost-saving when baseline re-excision rates are over 29%. For Medicare patients, MarginProbe provides a cost-savings when baseline re-excision rates exceed 34%, and FCS becomes cost-saving for re-excision rates over 52%. Our Pro-Forma allows an individual provider or institution to evaluate the cost savings of the FCS approach and/or utilization of the MarginProbe device such that the additional cost or cost-savings of utilizing one or both of these methods can be quickly calculated based on their facility's volume and baseline re-excision rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that utilizing either an FCS approach or the MarginProbe radiofrequency spectroscopy system may be a cost-saving solution to reducing the rate of re-excisions depending on a facility or practice's surgical volume and baseline re-excision rate. The degree to which each of these interventions provides an added cost or cost-savings to healthcare payers can be evaluated by utilizing the Pro-Forma outlined herein with customizable variable inputs.

A Statewide Approach to Reducing Re-excision Rates for Women With Breast-conserving Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Test the effectiveness of benchmarked performance reports based on existing discharge data paired with a statewide intervention to implement evidence-based strategies on breast re-excision rates.

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a common breast cancer surgery performed in a range of hospital settings. Studies have demonstrated variations in post-BCS re-excision rates, identifying it as a high-value improvement target.

METHODS

Wisconsin Hospital Association discharge data (2017-2019) were used to compare 60-day re-excision rates following BCS for breast cancer. The analysis estimated the difference in the average change preintervention to postintervention between Surgical Collaborative of Wisconsin (SCW) and nonparticipating hospitals using a logistic mixed-effects model with repeated measures, adjusting for age, payer, and hospital volume, including hospitals as random effects. The intervention included 5 collaborative meetings in 2018 to 2019 where surgeon champions shared guideline updates, best practices/challenges, and facilitated action planning. Confidential benchmarked performance reports were provided.

RESULTS

In 2017, there were 3692 breast procedures in SCW and 1279 in nonparticipating hospitals; hospital-level re-excision rates ranged from 5% to >50%. There was no statistically significant baseline difference in re-excision rates between SCW and nonparticipating hospitals (16.1% vs. 17.1%, P =0.47). Re-excision significantly decreased for SCW but not for nonparticipating hospitals (odds ratio=0.69, 95% confidence interval=0.52-0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmarked performance reports and collaborative quality improvement can decrease post-BCS re-excisions, increase quality, and decrease costs. Our study demonstrates the effective use of administrative data as a platform for statewide quality collaboratives. Using existing data requires fewer resources and offers a new paradigm that promotes participation across practice settings.

Intraoperative fluorescence imaging with aminolevulinic acid detects grossly occult breast cancer: a phase II randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Re-excision due to positive margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) negatively affects patient outcomes and healthcare costs. The inability to visualize margin involvement is a significant challenge in BCS. 5-Aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride (5-ALA HCl), a non-fluorescent oral prodrug, causes intracellular accumulation of fluorescent porphyrins in cancer cells. This single-center Phase II randomized controlled trial evaluated the safety, feasibility, and diagnostic accuracy of a prototype handheld fluorescence imaging device plus 5-ALA for intraoperative visualization of invasive breast carcinomas during BCS.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients were enrolled and randomized to receive no 5-ALA or oral 5-ALA HCl (15 or 30 mg/kg). Forty-five patients (n = 15/group) were included in the analysis. Fluorescence imaging of the excised surgical specimen was performed, and biopsies were collected from within and outside the clinically demarcated tumor border of the gross specimen for blinded histopathology.

RESULTS

In the absence of 5-ALA, tissue autofluorescence imaging lacked tumor-specific fluorescent contrast. Both 5-ALA doses caused bright red tumor fluorescence, with improved visualization of tumor contrasted against normal tissue autofluorescence. In the 15 mg/kg 5-ALA group, the positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting breast cancer inside and outside the grossly demarcated tumor border was 100.0% and 55.6%, respectively. In the 30 mg/kg 5-ALA group, the PPV was 100.0% and 50.0% inside and outside the demarcated tumor border, respectively. No adverse events were observed, and clinical feasibility of this imaging device-5-ALA combination approach was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first known clinical report of visualization of 5-ALA-induced fluorescence in invasive breast carcinoma using a real-time handheld intraoperative fluorescence imaging device.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01837225 . Registered 23 April 2013.

Changes in Reoperation After Publication of Consensus Guidelines on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The 2014 publication of the Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology (SSO-ASTRO) Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery recommended a negative margin definition of no ink on tumor. Adoption of this guideline would represent a major change in surgical practice that could lower the rates of reoperation.

Objective

To assess changes in reoperation rates after publication of the SSO-ASTRO guideline.

Data Sources

A systematic search of Embase, PREMEDLINE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science for biomedical literature published from January 2014 to July 2019 was performed. This search was supplemented by web searches and manual searching of conference abstracts.

Study Selection

Included studies compared the reoperation rates in preguideline vs postguideline cohorts (actual change), retrospectively applied the SSO-ASTRO guideline to a preguideline cohort (projected change), or described the economic outcomes of the guideline.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Study characteristics and reoperation rates were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled by random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were stratified by study setting (institutional or population) and preguideline accepted margins. The economic outcomes of the guideline were summarized narratively. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Odds ratios for postguideline vs preguideline reoperation rates.

Results

From 1114 citations, 30 studies (with 599 016 participants) reported changes in reoperation rates. Studies included a median (range) of 487 (100-521 578) participants, and 20 studies were undertaken in the US, 6 in the UK, 3 in Canada, and 1 in Australia. Among 21 studies of actual changes, pooled ORs showed a statistically significant reduction in reoperation, with an OR lower in institution-based studies than in population-based studies (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.52-0.74] vs 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.80]; P = .04 for subgroup differences). Among 9 studies of projected changes, the pooled OR was lower for preguideline margin thresholds of 2 mm or more compared with 1 mm (OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.40-0.56] vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79-0.91; P < .001 for subgroup differences). Projected changes were likely to overestimate actual changes. Six studies that estimated the postguideline economic outcome found the guideline to be potentially cost saving, with a median (range) saving of US $3540 ($1800-$25 650) per woman avoiding reoperation.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found a decrease in reoperation rates after the publication of the SSO-ASTRO guideline; this reduction was greater at an institutional level than a population level, the latter reflecting the differences in guideline adoption between centers. These early outcomes may be conservative estimates of longer-term implications.

Reoperation rate after breast conserving surgery as quality indicator in breast cancer treatment: A reappraisal

Aim

To analyse the role of repeated breast surgery (RBS) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) as a quality indicator in a consecutive series of breast cancer patients.

Methods

Data from 1233 breast cancer patients submitted to BCS from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. The influence of several variables on RBS rate (182/1232; 14.8%) was examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to look for significant associations with the risk of RBS.

Results

Surgical workload, BCS rate and clinicopathological variables were consistent over the study period, while RBS rate decreased after the introduction of shaving of cavity margins (from 17.9% to 9.5%). Tumor persistence at RBS was higher for mastectomy vs. re-excision (87.3% vs. 37.8%; p = 0.05), inconclusive vs. positive diagnostic biopsy (48.2% vs. 69.4%; p = 0.003), ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive carcinoma (69.0% vs. 51.3%; p = 0.046) and lower after neoadjuvant therapy (14.3% vs. 57.8%; p = 0.044). Several clinicopathological variables were associated with the risk of RBS, but only multifocality [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.8; p = 0.009], microcalcifications (OR: 2.0, p = 0.000), neoadjuvant therapy (OR: 0.4; p = 0.014), pathological intraoperative assessment (OR: 0.6; p = 0.010) and shaving of cavity margins (OR: 0.3; p = 0.000) retained independent value at multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

RBS rate can be reduced by shaving of cavity margins. Current standards for RBS should not be made more stringent due to the existence of non-actionable risk factors. The value of RBS as a quality indicator should be scrutinzed.

•

Some breast cancer patients need a reoperation for incomplete tumor excision after breast conserving surgery.

•

Reoperation rates show wide variations (10%–50%) among different Countries.

•

Shaving of cavity margins may reduce the reoperation rate, but non-invasive and multicentric lesiona are non-actionable risk factors

•

The value of reoperation rate as a quality indicator of breast cancer surgery is questionable.

Deimplementation of the Choosing Wisely Recommendations for Low-Value Breast Cancer Surgery

Importance

Overtreatment of early-stage breast cancer results in increased morbidity and cost without improving survival. Major surgical organizations participating in the Choosing Wisely campaign identified 4 breast cancer operations as low value: (1) axillary lymph node dissection for limited nodal disease in patients receiving lumpectomy and radiation, (2) re-excision for close but negative lumpectomy margins for invasive cancer, (3) contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients at average risk with unilateral cancer, and (4) sentinel lymph node biopsy in women 70 years or older with hormone receptor-positive cancer.

Objective

To evaluate the extent to which these procedures have been deimplemented, determine the implications of decreased use, and recognize possible barriers and facilitators to deimplementation.

Evidence Review

A systematic review of published literature on use trends in breast surgery was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Ovid, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases were searched for original research with relevance to the Choosing Wisely recommendations of interest. Eligible studies were examined for data about use, and any patient-level, clinician-level, or system-level factors associated with use.

Findings

Concordant with recommendations, national rates of axillary lymph node dissection for patients with limited nodal disease have decreased by approximately 50% (from 44% in 2011 to 30% to 34% in 2012 and 25% to 28% in 2013), and national rates of lumpectomy margin re-excision have decreased by nearly 40% (from 16% to 34% before to 14% to 18% after publication of a consensus statement). Conversely, national rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy continue to rise each year, accounting for up to 30% of all mastectomies for breast cancer (range in all mastectomy cases: 2010-2012, 28%-30%; 1998, <2%), and rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women 70 years or older with low-risk breast cancer are persistently greater than 80% (range, 80%-88%). Factors associated with high rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use are younger age, white race, increased socioeconomic status, and the availability of breast reconstruction; limited data exist on factors associated with high rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women 70 years or older. Successful deimplementation of axillary lymph node dissection and lumpectomy margin re-excision were associated with decreased costs and improved patient-centered outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review demonstrates variable deimplementation of 4 low-value surgical procedures in patients with breast cancer. Addressing specific patient-level, clinician-level, and system-level barriers to deimplementation is necessary to encourage shared decision-making and reduce overtreatment.

The Value of Repeated Breast Surgery as a Quality Indicator in Breast Cancer Care

Breast-conserving surgery, a major achievement in surgical oncology, has allowed an increasing number of breast cancer patients to avoid the mutilation of mastectomy. However, mastectomy still is performed in certain circumstances although breast-conserving surgery would be equally safe. Many reasons, including patients' and surgeons' personal motivations, influence the decision-making process before the final choice between breast preservation and mastectomy. The importance of quality measurement and reporting in medicine is increasingly recognized, and breast surgery is no exception. The substantial variability of re-excision rates for positive surgical margins after a first attempt at breast-conserving surgery suggests that improvement is possible. Therefore, the re-excision rate has been proposed as a quality metric for assessing and comparing the performance of different institutions. Indeed, re-excision rates can be reduced by actionable factors such as accurate preoperative local staging, localization of occult lesions, and intraoperative assessment of the oriented specimen. However, equally important non-actionable risk factors pertaining the biology, detectability, and resectability of the tumor also should be taken into account. Therefore, if the re-excision rate has to be used as a performance indicator of breast surgical care, critical interpretation of results with accurate case-mix adjustment are mandatory, and reasonable targets must be appropriately set so that surgeons treating patients at higher risk of positive margins are not unduly penalized.

Adoption of SSO-ASTRO Margin Guidelines for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: What Is the Impact on Use of Additional Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Historically, more than one-third of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) underwent additional surgery. The SSO-ASTRO guidelines advise 2 mm margins for patients with DCIS having BCS and whole-breast radiation (WBRT). Here we examine guideline impact on additional surgery and factors associated with re-excision.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with BCS for pure DCIS from August 2015 to January 2018 were identified. Guidelines were adopted on September 1, 2016, and all patients had separately submitted cavity-shave margins. Clinicopathologic characteristics, margin status, and rates of additional surgery were examined.

RESULTS

Among 650 patients with DCIS who attempted BCS, 50 (8%) converted to mastectomy. Of 600 who had BCS as final surgery, 336 (56%) received WBRT and comprised our study group. One hundred twenty-eight (38%) were treated pre-guideline and 208 (62%) were treated post-guideline. Characteristics and margin status were similar between groups. The re-excision rate was 38% pre-guideline adoption and 29% post-guideline adoption (p = 0.09), with 91% having only one re-excision. Re-excision for ≥ 2 mm margins was uncommon (6% pre-guideline vs. 5% post-guideline). On multivariate analysis, younger age (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, p = 0.02) and larger DCIS size (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.2-1.8, p < 0.001) were predictive of re-excision; guideline era was not. Younger age (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.9-0.97, p < 0.001) and larger size (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.3-2.1, p < 0.001) were predictive of conversion to mastectomy, but residual tumor burden was low.

CONCLUSIONS

The SSO-ASTRO guidelines did not significantly change re-excision rates for DCIS in our practice, likely since re-excision for margins ≥ 2 mm was uncommon even prior to guideline adoption, dissimilar to historically observed variations in surgeon practices. Younger age and larger DCIS size were associated with additional surgery.

Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study

Introduction

A 2014 consensus statement from the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology supported “no ink on tumor” as an adequate margin for breast conserving therapy (BCT). This study evaluates this statement in a multi-institution cohort.

Methods

A retrospective review of BCT cases at 3 comprehensive cancer centers was performed. Women age >18 receiving BCT for T1-2 breast cancer from 2008-2012 were included. Pre-2014, all sites considered 2 mm adequate. Estimated re-excision rates using the 2014 guidelines were calculated and factors predictive of re-excision were analyzed.

Results

542 patients (545 lumpectomies) were eligible. Using a ≥2 mm margin standard, 32.8% of patients underwent re-excision compared to 14.1% after 2014 (p < 0.0001). Tumor size (p= 0.003), grade (p=0.015), and lymphovascular invasion (p=0.021) were predictive of re-excision. Patients with additional intraoperative margins excised were less likely to require reoperation (p=0.002). Local recurrence was unaffected by re-excision after mean followup of 66 months.

Conclusions

The 2014 margin guidelines markedly reduce re-excision rates. There is no difference in local recurrence for patients after re-excision for a close margin versus without Powered.

•

Multi-institution review 2014 consensus statement on margins for invasive breast cancer.

•

Pooled results demonstrated a 32.8% re-excision rate reduced to 14.1% if the "no tumor on ink" guidelines were applied.

•

No difference in local recurrence rates, including patients with close margins, after median followup of 67 months.

Breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most frequent malignancy in women worldwide and is curable in ~70-80% of patients with early-stage, non-metastatic disease. Advanced breast cancer with distant organ metastases is considered incurable with currently available therapies. On the molecular level, breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease; molecular features include activation of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2, encoded by ERBB2), activation of hormone receptors (oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor) and/or BRCA mutations. Treatment strategies differ according to molecular subtype. Management of breast cancer is multidisciplinary; it includes locoregional (surgery and radiation therapy) and systemic therapy approaches. Systemic therapies include endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive disease, chemotherapy, anti-HER2 therapy for HER2-positive disease, bone stabilizing agents, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for BRCA mutation carriers and, quite recently, immunotherapy. Future therapeutic concepts in breast cancer aim at individualization of therapy as well as at treatment de-escalation and escalation based on tumour biology and early therapy response. Next to further treatment innovations, equal worldwide access to therapeutic advances remains the global challenge in breast cancer care for the future.

Was Reexcision Less Frequent for Patients with Lobular Breast Cancer After Publication of the SSO-ASTRO Margin Guidelines?

BACKGROUND

The Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guidelines defined a negative margin for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) as no ink on tumor, and implementation has reduced rates of additional surgery for patients with invasive ductal cancer (IDC). The outcomes for invasive lobular cancer (ILC) patients are uncertain.

METHODS

This study identified patients who had stage 1 or 2 ILC treated with BCS from January 2010 to February 2018. The guidelines were adopted 1 January 2014. Clinicopathologic characteristics, margin status, and reexcisions were compared before and after adoption of the guidelines and with those of IDC patients treated from May 2013 to February 2015.

RESULTS

Among 745 early-stage ILC patients undergoing BCT, 312 (42%) were treated before the guidelines and 433 (58%) after the guidelines. Most clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between the two groups, with differences in lobular carcinoma in situ, lymphovascular invasion, and node-positivity rates. The overall rates of additional surgery declined significantly after the guidelines (31.4 to 23.1%; p = 0.01), but the difference did not reach significance for reexcisions (19.9 to 15.2%; p = 0.12) or conversions to mastectomy (11.5 to 7.9%; p = 0.099) individually. Between eras, no difference in incidence or number of tumor on ink or ≤ 2 mm margins was observed (all p = 0.2). Larger tumors, younger age, and pre-guideline era were independently associated with additional surgery. Only younger age was predictive of mastectomy. Among 431 pre-guideline and 601 post-guideline IDC patients, reexcisions declined from 21.3 to 14.8% (p = 0.008), and conversion to mastectomy was rare (0.6%). The magnitude of reduction in any additional surgery (interaction, p = 0.92) and reexcisions (interaction, p = 0.56) was similar between ILC and IDC.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite differences in growth pattern and conspicuity, guideline adoption significantly reduced additional surgery among ILC patients, with a magnitude of benefit similar to that among IDC patients.

Positive margins (R1) risk factors in breast cancer conservative surgery

Background

The primary goal in conservative breast cancer surgery is the complete excision of the tumor, but at the same time attempting to obtain a satisfactory postoperative esthetic result. The notion of “No Ink on Tumor” that indicates exclusively the presence of tumor cells on the inked surface of the surgical specimen is now the gold standard; however, the problem of the free margin is still a fundamental topic of debate that has not yet found a definitive solution.

Methods

Our retrospective analysis takes into account 1440 patients undergoing breast conservative surgery, from October 2004 to November 2018, all treated at the breast unit of our institution.

Results

Positive margins (R1) rate was 10.2% (147 cases out of 1440). Overall survival was 95% at 5 years and 89% at 10 years. No differences in mortality and local recurrence rate between R0 and R1 patients were found. Half of the R1 patients underwent secondary surgery with enlargement of margins, while in the other half we performed direct mastectomy. Among the analyzed variables, age, histological size, histological type, grading, multifocality, lympho-vascular invasion and lymph node status were significantly correlated with the R1 status. The multivariate analysis shows  the association of age and surgical technique (oncoplastic) with R1 status.

Conclusion

Further studies will allow the creation of a statistical model, for better pre-operative prediction of patients with higher risk of R1 and better selection of patients to be candidates for conservative surgery.

Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast-Conserving Surgery for Cancer: A Prospective Study of American Society of Breast Surgeon Members

Background

More than 20% of patients undergoing initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for cancer require reoperation. To address this concern, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) endorsed 10 processes of care (tools) in 2015 to be considered by surgeons to de-escalate reoperations. In a planned follow-up, we sought to determine which tools were associated with fewer reoperations.

Methods

A cohort of ASBrS member surgeons prospectively entered data into the ASBrS Mastery^® registry on consecutive patients undergoing BCS in 2017. The association between tools and reoperations was estimated via multivariate and hierarchical ranking analyses.

Results

Seventy-one surgeons reported reoperations in 486 (12.3%) of 3954 cases (mean 12.7% [standard deviation (SD) 7.7%], median 11.5% [range 0–32%]). There was an eightfold difference between surgeons in the 10th and 90th percentile performance groups. Actionable factors associated with fewer reoperations included routine planned cavity side-wall shaves, surgeon use of ultrasound (US), neoadjuvant chemotherapy, intra-operative pathologic margin assessment, and use of a pre-operative diagnostic imaging modality beyond conventional 2D mammography. For patients with invasive cancer, ≥ 24% of those who underwent reexcision did so for reported margins of < 1 or 2 mm, representing noncompliance with the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline.

Conclusions

Although ASBrS member surgeons had some of the lowest rates of reoperation reported in any registry, significant intersurgeon variability persisted. Further efforts to lower rates are therefore warranted. Opportunities to do so were identified by adopting those processes of care, including improved compliance with the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline, which were associated with fewer reoperations.

Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic

In 2015, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) convened a multidisciplinary consensus conference, the Collaborative Attempt to Lower Lumpectomy Reoperation Rates (CALLER). The CALLER conference endorsed a "toolbox" of multiple processes of care for which there was evidence that they were associated with fewer reoperations. We present an update of the toolbox taking into consideration the latest advances in decreasing re excision rates. In this review, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature from 2015-2018 using search terms for each tool. The original ten tools were updated with the latest evidence from the literature and our strength of recommendation. We added an additional section looking at new tools and techniques that may provide more accurate intraoperative assessment of margins. The updates on the CALLER Toolbox for lumpectomy will help guide surgeons to various resources to aid in the removal of breast cancer, while being aware of cosmesis and decreasing re excision rates.

Factors influencing reoperation following breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

Reoperation rates after breast-conserving surgery are highly variable and the best techniques for optimizing margin clearance are being evaluated. The aim was to identify the reoperation rate at our centre and identify influential factors, including a change in guidelines on margin recommendations and the introduction of in-theatre specimen X-ray.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was undertaken to identify 562 patients who underwent breast conservation at The Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital between 2013 and 2015. All cases that underwent subsequent re-excision or total mastectomy were captured and factors influencing margin excision recorded.

RESULTS

Reoperation was undertaken in 19.5% of patients (110; 86 re-excisions and 24 total mastectomies). There was a reduction in reoperation rate from 25% to 17% (P = 0.01) with adoption of the margin guidelines in 2014, but no significant reduction with the introduction of in-theatre specimen X-ray in 2015 (21% versus 16%, P = 0.14). On multivariate analysis, factors that significantly influenced reoperation rates were the presence of multifocality on mammogram (odds ratio (OR): 5.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-16.7, P < 0.01); lesion size on mammogram (OR: 2.2 per 10 mm, 95% CI: 1.4-3.6, P < 0.01); smaller excision specimen weight (OR: 0.5 per 25 g of resection, 95% CI: 0.3-0.8, P < 0.01); and pure ductal carcinoma in situ on final pathology (OR: 5.9, 95% CI: 1.9-16.7, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Optimizing reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery remains a surgical challenge, particularly in patients with in situ or multifocal disease. Adoption of international margin guidelines reduced reoperation rates at our centre; however, introduction of intraoperative specimen X-ray had no influence.

Trends in Reoperation After Initial Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: Addressing Overtreatment in Surgical Management

Importance

Surgery after initial lumpectomy to obtain more widely clear margins is common and may lead to mastectomy.

Objective

To describe surgeons' approach to surgical margins for invasive breast cancer, and changes in postlumpectomy surgery rates, and final surgical treatment following a 2014 consensus statement endorsing a margin of "no ink on tumor."

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a population-based cohort survey study of 7303 eligible women ages 20 to 79 years with stage I and II breast cancer diagnosed in 2013 to 2015 and identified from the Georgia and Los Angeles County, California, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. A total of 5080 (70%) returned a survey. Those with bilateral disease, missing stage or treatment data, and with ductal carcinoma in situ were excluded, leaving 3729 patients in the analytic sample; 98% of these identified their attending surgeon. Between April 2015 and May 2016, 488 surgeons were surveyed regarding lumpectomy margins; 342 (70%) responded completely. Pathology reports of all patients having a second surgery and a 30% sample of those with 1 surgery were reviewed. Time trends were analyzed with multinomial regression models.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates of final surgical procedure (lumpectomy, unilateral mastectomy, bilateral mastectomy) and rates of additional surgery after initial lumpectomy over time, and surgeon attitudes toward an adequate lumpectomy margin.

Results

The 67% rate of initial lumpectomy in the 3729 patient analytic sample was unchanged during the study. The rate of final lumpectomy increased by 13% from 2013 to 2015, accompanied by a decrease in unilateral and bilateral mastectomy (P = .002). Surgery after initial lumpectomy declined by 16% (P < .001). Pathology review documented no significant association between date of treatment and positive margins. Of 342 responding surgeons, 69% endorsed a margin of no ink on tumor to avoid reexcision in estrogen receptor-positive progesterone receptor-positive cancer and 63% for estrogen receptor-negative progesterone- receptor-negative cancer. Surgeons treating more than 50 breast cancers annually were significantly more likely to report this margin as adequate (85%; n = 105) compared with those treating 20 cases or fewer (55%; n = 131) (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Additional surgery after initial lumpectomy decreased markedly from 2013 to 2015 concomitant with dissemination of clinical guidelines endorsing a minimal negative margin. These findings suggest that surgeon-led initiatives to address potential overtreatment can reduce the burden of surgical management in patients with cancer.

Early health technology assessment of magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound ablation for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablation is in development for minimally invasive treatment of breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness has not been assessed yet. An early health technology assessment was performed to estimate costs of MR-HIFU ablation, compared to breast conserving treatment (BCT).

METHODS

An MR-HIFU treatment model using the dedicated MR-HIFU breast system (Sonalleve, Philips Healthcare) was developed. Input parameters (treatment steps and duration) were based on the analysis of questionnaire data from an expert panel. MR-HIFU experts assessed face validity of the model. Data collected by questionnaires were compared to published data of an MR-HIFU breast feasibility study. Treatment costs for tumours of 1 to 3 cm were calculated.

RESULTS

The model structure was considered of acceptable face validity by consulted experts, and questionnaire data and published data were comparable. Costs of MR-HIFU ablation were higher than BCT costs. MR-HIFU best-case scenario costs exceeded BCT costs with approximately €1000. Cooling times and breathing correction contributed most to treatment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

MR-HIFU ablation is currently not a cost-effective alternative for BCT. MR-HIFU experience is limited, increasing uncertainty of estimations. The potential for cost-effectiveness increases if future research reduces treatment durations and might substantiate equal or improved results.

Cost Analysis of a Surgical Consensus Guideline in Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND

The Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society of Radiation Oncology consensus statement was the first professional guideline in breast oncology to declare "no ink on tumor" as a negative margin in patients with stages I/II breast cancer undergoing breast-conservation therapy. We sought to analyze the financial impact of this guideline at our institution using a historic cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified women undergoing re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer from 2010 through 2013 using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Clinical and billing data were extracted from the medical record and from administrative resources using CPT codes. Descriptive statistics were used in data analysis.

RESULTS

Of 254 women in the study population, 238 (93.7%) had stage I/II disease and 182 (71.7%) had invasive disease with ductal carcinoma in situ. A subcohort of 83 patients (32.7%) who underwent breast-conservation therapy for stage I/II disease without neoadjuvant chemotherapy had negative margins after the index procedure, per the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society of Radiation Oncology guideline. The majority had invasive ductal carcinoma (n = 70 [84.3%]) and had invasive disease (n = 45 [54.2%]), and/or ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 49 [59.0%]) within 1 mm of the specimen margin. Seventy-nine patients underwent 1 re-excision and 4 patients underwent 2 re-excisions, accounting for 81 hours of operative time. Considering facility fees and primary surgeon billing alone, the overall estimated cost reduction would have been $195,919, or $2,360 per affected patient, under the guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society of Radiation Oncology consensus guideline holds great potential to optimize resource use. Application of the guideline to a retrospective cohort at our institution would have decreased the overall re-excision rate by 5.6% and reduced costs by nearly $200,000. Additional analysis of patient outcomes and margin assessment methods is needed to define the long-term impact on surgical practice.

Highlights from the 15th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 15-18 March, 2017, Vienna: tailored treatments for patients with early breast cancer

The 15th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference was held in Vienna for the second time, from 15th–18th March 2017. 4000 people from 105 countries all over the world were invited to take part in the event. The real highlight of the conference was the last day with the International Consensus Session which was chaired by around 50 experts on breast cancer worldwide. With reference to data from scientific research, the consensus panel tried to offer guidelines for the management of breast cancer with the aim of providing patients with optimal treatment. The topics covered focused on the treatment of breast cancer, consideration of surgery, radiotherapy, neo-adjuvant, and adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer, as well as genetics and prevention of breast cancer.

In particular, in terms of precision medicine, an important topic of the conference was ‘is it possible to think that it could become routine in clinical practice to use immunotherapy and targeted therapy based on genetic signatures?’

In view of personalised therapy, it is important to take into consideration women’s treatment preferences. It is also important not only to offer guidelines which help breast cancer experts all over the world to choose the proper treatment for women with breast cancer but also to discuss the pros and cons of the therapy with the patient. This allows for a better understanding of the disease.

‘From the maximum tolerable to the minimum effective treatment: it is essential to escalate treatment when necessary and to de-escalate when unnecessary’. These few words could summarise the meaning of the 15th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference. Prof Martine Piccart-Gebhart was awarded with the St Gallen International Breast Cancer Award 2017 for her fundamental clinical research contribution and Prof Giuseppe Curigliano with the Umberto Veronesi Memorial Award which aims to recognise a physician’s leading role in advancing the science and care of breast cancer patients. Curigliano, in his lecture, spoke about the revolutionary immunotherapy in the clinical management of breast cancer (BC). For the development of these therapies, it is necessary to identify the genetic determinants of BC immune phenotypes in which The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has contributed towards this.

For example, the T helper (Th-1) phenotype (ICR4), which also exhibits upregulation of immune-regulatory transcripts (eg. PDL1, PD1, FOXP3, IDO1, and CTLA4), was associated with prolonged patients’ survival. Chromosome segment 4q21, which includes genes encoding the Th-1 chemokines CXCL9-11, was significantly amplified only in the immune favourable phenotype (ICR4). The mutation and neo-antigen load progressively decreased from ICR4 to ICR1 but could not explain immune phenotypic differences. Mutations of TP53 were enriched in the immune favourable phenotype (ICR4). Instead, the presence of MAP3K1 and MAP2K4 mutations were closely associated with an immune unfavourable phenotype (ICR1). Using both the TCGA and the validation dataset, the degree of MAPK deregulation segregates BC according to their immune disposition. These findings suggest that mutational-driven deregulation of MAPK pathways is linked to the negative regulation of intratumoural immune response in BC.

The main themes of this congress were: 1) Surgery of the primary tumour and margins; 2) Surgery of the axilla; 3) Radiotherapy: hypofractionated, ‘boost’ to tumour bed, partial breast, regional node, after mastectomy, advanced technology; 4) Pathology: subtypes, TILs; 5) Multi-gene signatures and therapy; 6) Endocrine therapy: pre- and post-menopausal and duration; 7) Chemotherapy: subtypes, stages; 8) Anti-HER-2 therapy; 9) Neo-adjuvant therapy; 10) Adjuvant bisphosponates; 11) Adjuvant diet and exercise.

True Local Recurrences after Breast Conserving Surgery have Poor Prognosis in Patients with Early Breast Cancer

Background:

This study was aimed at investigating clinical and histopathologic features of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences (IBTR) and their effects on survival after breast conservation therapy.

Methods:

1,400 patients who were treated between 1998 and 2007 and had breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for early breast cancer (cT1-2/N0-1/M0) were evaluated. Demographic and pathologic parameters, radiologic data, treatment, and follow-up related features of the patients were recorded.

Results:

53 patients (3.8%) had IBTR after BCS within a median follow-up of 70 months. The mean age was 45.7 years (range, 27-87 years), and 22 patients (41.5%) were younger than 40 years. 33 patients (62.3%) had true recurrence (TR) and 20 were classified as new primary (NP). The median time to recurrence was shorter in TR group than in NP group (37.0 (6-216) and 47.5 (11-192) months respectively; p = 0.338). Progesterone receptor positivity was significantly higher in the NP group (p = 0.005). The overall 5-year survival rate in the NP group (95.0%) was significantly higher than that of the TR group (74.7%, p < 0.033). Multivariate analysis showed that younger age (<40 years), large tumor size (>20 mm), high grade tumor and triple-negative molecular phenotype along with developing TR negatively affected overall survival (hazard ratios were 4.2 (CI 0.98-22.76), 4.6 (CI 1.07-13.03), 4.0 (CI 0.68-46.10), 6.5 (CI 0.03-0.68), and 6.5 (CI 0.02- 0.80) respectively, p < 0.05).

Conclusions:

Most of the local recurrences after BCS in our study were true recurrences, which resulted in a poorer outcome as compared to new primary tumors. Moreover, younger age (<40), large tumor size (>2 cm), high grade, triple negative phenotype, and having true recurrence were identified as independent prognostic factors with a negative impact on overall survival in this dataset of patients with recurrent breast cancer. In conjunction with a more intensive follow-up program, the role of adjuvant therapy strategies should be explored further in young patients with large and high-risk tumors to reduce the risk of TR.