Search

Non-Hispanic black (NHB) women and those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) have inferior breast cancer outcomes compared with non-Hispanic white (NHW) women and those of higher SES. We examined racial and SES disparities in breast cancer survival within the AJCC 8th edition pathologic prognostic staging system. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program, we identified patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2015, with follow-up through 2016. Census tract-level SES (cSES) data were available as a composite index and analyzed in quintiles. Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses adjusted for age, race, cSES, insurance, marital status, histology, pathologic prognostic stage, and treatment were used to estimate disease-specific survival (DSS). A total of 259,852 patients were included: 176,369 (67.9%) NHW; 28,510 (11.0%) NHB; 29,737 (11.4%) Hispanic; and 22,887 (8.8%) Asian. NHB race and lower cSES were associated with increased incidence of triple-negative disease compared with NHW (p

Tumor biology is an important prognostic factor in breast cancer. This study aimed to compare three staging systems incorporating both biologic factors and anatomic staging (AJCC 8th-edition pathologic prognostic staging, Bioscore, and Risk Score) in a large population-based cohort. The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program was used to select patients with primary stages 1–4 breast cancer diagnosed in 2010. Patients with inflammatory carcinoma, those with missing data for biologic factors, and those with stages 1–3 disease not treated with surgery were excluded from the study. Estimates of 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. The Harrel concordance index (C-index) and the Akaike Information Criterion were used to compare each model in terms of predicting DSS. The study included 21,901 patients with a median age of 60 years. The median follow-up period was 52 months. All the staging models stratified DSS, with a stepwise decrease in DSS for each increase in risk category or score. The C-index of each model incorporating biologic factors was higher than the C-index for anatomic staging alone (C-index: 0.832 vs. 0.856 for AJCC pathologic prognostic staging, 0.856 for Bioscore, and 0.864 for Risk Score, all p

Non-Hispanic black (NHB) women and those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) have inferior breast cancer outcomes compared with non-Hispanic white (NHW) women and those of higher SES. We examined racial and SES disparities in breast cancer survival within the AJCC 8th edition pathologic prognostic staging system.Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program, we identified patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2015, with follow-up through 2016. Census tract-level SES (cSES) data were available as a composite index and analyzed in quintiles. Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses adjusted for age, race, cSES, insurance, marital status, histology, pathologic prognostic stage, and treatment were used to estimate disease-specific survival (DSS).A total of 259,852 patients were included: 176,369 (67.9%) NHW; 28,510 (11.0%) NHB; 29,737 (11.4%) Hispanic; and 22,887 (8.8%) Asian. NHB race and lower cSES were associated with increased incidence of triple-negative disease compared with NHW (p 0.01). NHB race, lower cSES, public insurance, lower education, and increased poverty were associated with lower DSS. Survival analyses adjusting for cSES, tumor, and treatment characteristics demonstrated that NHB patients had inferior DSS within each AJCC pathologic prognostic stage (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.30) compared with NHW patients. Fully adjusted models also showed patients residing in lower SES counties had inferior DSS.Racial and cSES disparities in breast cancer-specific mortality were evident across all stages, even within the pathologic prognostic staging system which incorporates tumor biology. Future efforts should assess the biological, behavioral, social, and environmental determinants that underlie racial and SES inequities in outcomes.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) breast cancer pathological prognostic stage, which incorporates biologic factors, was developed using data from patients undergoing upfront surgery, and its application in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unknown. We previously developed the Neo-Bioscore, incorporating clinical and pathological TNM categories with biologic factors, to improve the prognostic stratification of NAC patients. This study was undertaken to evaluate the use of available staging models incorporating biologic factors in NAC patients. Patients treated with NAC between 2005 and 2012 at MD Anderson (n = 2363) were staged using the Neo-Bioscore and the AJCC 8th edition: (1) clinical anatomic stage; (2) pathological anatomic stage; (3) clinical prognostic stage; and (4) pathological prognostic stage. Five-year disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) rates, along with Harrell’s concordance index (C-index), were estimated. A National Cancer Database (NCDB) cohort (n = 12,887) treated with NAC between 2010 and 2013 was used for validation. In the MD Anderson cohort, staging systems incorporating biologic factors better predicted DSS (bias-corrected C-index: pathological prognostic stage = 0.8026; Neo-Bioscore = 0.7483) and OS (bias-corrected C-index: pathological prognostic stage = 0.7780; Neo-Bioscore = 0.7260) than those using anatomic factors only. Similar results were seen in the NCDB cohort. In pairwise comparisons, the pathological prognostic stage was significantly better (p

The SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline on invasive breast cancer defined negative margin as no ink on tumor, obviating the need for reexcision in some patients. We evaluated the impact of these recommendations on the rates of reexcision in older breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Women age ≥ 66 years with stage I–II breast cancer who underwent BCS and radiation were identified in the SEER-Medicare linked database (2012–2015). We divided patients into three cohorts: pre-guideline (January 2012 to September 2013), peri-guideline (October 2013 to March 2014), and post-guideline (April 2014 to September 2016). Descriptive statistics were used, and the relative change in reexcision rate between the pre- and post-guideline periods was calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with risk of reexcision. A total of 11,639 patients were included (pre-guideline, N = 5211; peri-guideline, N = 1366; post-guideline, N = 5062); overall, 21.7% of patients underwent reexcision. The reexcision rates decreased after the guideline was published (23.5% vs. 19.3%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable model, BCS during the post-guideline period was associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of reexcision (RR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.78–0.90). Lobular histology was associated with a higher risk of reexcision (RR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.19–1.46), and greater surgeon volume was associated with lower risk of reexcision (RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.85–1.0). Among older breast cancer patients undergoing BCS for invasive cancer, reexcision rates decreased with the dissemination of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline. Identifying factors associated with higher rates of reexcision could improve guideline compliance and reduce the frequency of unnecessary interventions in older patients.

The SSO-ASTRO-ASCO consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) recommended a 2-mm margin. We sought to determine the impact of guideline publication on clinician practice. A total of 3081 members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) received a survey. Respondents’ clinical practice type and duration, guideline familiarity, and margin width preferences before and after publication were assessed. Clinical practice pattern differences before and after publication were investigated using McNemar’s test. A total of 767 (24.9%) of those surveyed responded. Most (92.4%) indicated guideline familiarity. Of those familiar, re-excision preference for DCIS and a positive margin remained the same before (94.4%) and after (94.3%) publication (McNemar’s test p = 1.0). Following publication, surgeons were more likely to avoid re-excision to achieve margins wider than 2-mm (82.3% pre versus 87.5% post, p = 0.002). More surgeons performed re-excision for a close margin with pure DCIS (25.9% pre versus 36.5% post, p

Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) broadens the indications for breast conservation. Neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (NAC) is used increasingly in the treatment of patients with early-stage and locally advanced breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes for patients who received NAC followed by OBCS. A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who underwent OBCS involving the mastopexy/breast-reduction technique, including synchronous mastopexy/breast reduction for symmetry, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2010 and January 2016. Patients who had received NAC were compared with those who had undergone surgery first. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected. The study included 429 patients, corresponding to 713 breasts. Of these patients, 122, corresponding to 199 breasts, received NAC. The patients who received NAC were younger (p

Many patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Recent trials suggest the potential for limiting axillary surgery in patients who convert to pathologically node-negative disease. The authors developed a nomogram to predict axillary response to NAC in patients with cN1 disease that can assist clinicians in treatment planning. Patients with cT1–4N1M0 breast cancer who received NAC and underwent axillary lymph node dissection from 2001 through 2013 were identified (n = 584). Uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors predictive of nodal conversion. A nomogram to predict the likelihood of nodal pathologic complete response (pCR) was constructed based on clinicopathologic variables and validated using an external dataset. Axillary pCR was achieved for 217 patients (37 %). Patients presenting with high nuclear grade [grade 3 vs. 1, odds ratio (OR) 13.4], human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (OR 4.7), estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (OR 3.5), or progesterone receptor-negative (OR 4.3) tumors were more likely to achieve nodal pCR. These factors, together with clinically relevant factors including presence of multifocal/centric disease, clinical T stage, and extent of nodal disease seen on regional nodal ultrasound at diagnosis were used to create nomograms predicting nodal conversion. The discrimination of the nomogram using ER+ status (>1 % staining) versus ER− status [area under the curve (AUC) 78 %] was improved slightly using the percentage of ER staining (AUC 78.7 %). Both nomograms were validated using an external cohort. Nomograms incorporating routine clinicopathologic parameters can predict axillary pCR in node-positive patients receiving NAC and may help to inform treatment decisions.

No studies have examined the impact of the interval from conclusion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to surgery in breast cancer patients. This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between time interval from neoadjuvant chemotherapy to surgery and survival outcomes.Breast cancer patients diagnosed with stage I-III disease who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy June 1995 to April 2007 were identified. The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to surgery interval, defined as ≤4, 4-6, or6 weeks, on survival outcomes was examined. Descriptive statistics and Cox proportional hazards models were used.A total of 1101 patients were identified. Median time to surgery was 33 (range 8-159) days; 335 patients (30.4 %) had surgery within 4 weeks of their last dose of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 524 (47.6 %) within 4-6 weeks, and 242 (22.0 %) after more than 6 weeks. Median follow-up was 94 (range 3-178) months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) estimates were 79, 87, and 81 % in patients who underwent surgery ≤4, 4-6, and6 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively (p = 0.03). The three groups did not differ in 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) or locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS). In multivariable analysis, compared with an interval of ≤4 weeks, patients who underwent surgery at 4-6 or6 weeks had equivalent OS, LRFS, and RFS; a sensitivity analysis suggested worse OS in patients who underwent surgery at8 weeks.Patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy to surgery intervals of up to 8 weeks had equivalent OS, RFS, and LRFS.

To evaluate recurrence and survival for patients with occult (T0N+) breast cancer who underwent contemporary treatment, assessing outcomes for breast conservation and mastectomy. We performed a single-institution review of women with occult breast cancer presenting with axillary metastasis without identifiable breast tumor or distant metastasis. We excluded patients with tumors in the axillary tail or mastectomy specimen, patients with additional nonbreast cancer diagnoses, and patients with a history of breast cancer. Breast conservation was defined as axillary node dissection with radiation therapy, without breast surgery. We evaluated patient, tumor, treatment, and outcome variables. Patients were assessed for local, regional, and distant recurrences. Overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Thirty-six patients met criteria for occult breast cancer. Most of these patients (77.8 %) had N1 disease. Fifty percent of cancers (n = 18) were estrogen receptor–positive; 12 (33.3 %) were triple-negative. All patients were evaluated with mammography. Thirty-five patients had breast ultrasound (97.2 %) and 33 (91.7 %) had an MRI. Thirty-four patients (94.4 %) were treated with chemotherapy and 33 (91.7 %) with radiotherapy. Twenty-seven patients (75.0 %) were treated with breast conservation. The median follow-up was 64 months. There were no local or regional failures. One distant recurrence occurred >5 years after diagnosis, resulting in a 5-years overall survival rate of 100 %. There were no significant survival differences between patients receiving breast conservation versus mastectomy (p = 0.7). Breast conservation—performed with contemporary imaging and multimodality treatment—provides excellent local control and survival for women with T0N+ breast cancer and can be safely offered instead of mastectomy.

The rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have markedly increased in the US over the past 2 decades. These trends have been observed in all patient age groups, cancer stages, races, and in all geographic regions of the US. In the most recently published analyses from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database, the CPM rates were still increasing with no plateau. Most patients who undergo CPM do not have strong genetic or familial risk factors for developing contralateral breast cancer. Recent survey studies have demonstrated that breast cancer patients substantially overestimate the risk of contralateral breast cancer and have unrealistic outcomes from CPM. Moreover, in a survey study among active members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS), Yao et al. concluded that 39.2 % of respondents had a ‘low level of knowledge about CPM’. Given the gaps in knowledge among both patients and surgeons, the publication of the ASBrS consensus statement is timely. In 1993, the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) developed a position statement on the use of CPM, which was most recently edited and updated in March 2007. Since the last revision of this position statement, many important studies have been published evaluating the risks of contralateral breast cancer, outcomes after CPM, and patients’ perceptions and preferences. The ASBrS consensus statement appropriately incorporates most of this relevant recent research. In the strongest language to date, the consensus statement recommends that CPM should be ‘discouraged’ for patients with an average risk of contralateral breast cancer. This population of patients represents the vast majority of women who undergo CPM in the US. The statement further concludes that ‘CPM should be considered’ for selected groups at significant risk of contralateral breast cancer (including carriers of BRCA 1 or 2 deleterious mutations). Furthermore, ‘CPM can be considered’ for selected groups at lower risk of contralateral breast cancer (including other gene mutation carriers). Additionally, ‘CPM may be considered’ for non-oncologic reasons (including limiting contralateral breast surveillance). Finally, ‘CPM should be discouraged’ for patients with advanced primary-stage breast cancer and patients who are in overall poor health or at very high risk of associated complications. In recent years, there has been a rapid proliferation in the number and scope of published clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements. To address the substantial variation in the clinical guideline development processes, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published eight standards in ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust’ in 2011. Although there are subtle differences between consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines, both should be transparent, multidisciplinary, evidence-based, and intended to provide guidance to clinicians and patients. The ASBrS CPM consensus statement adheres to some, but not all, of the IOM standards. For example, the IOM recommends that the clinical guideline development group be multidisciplinary, balanced, and include current/former Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

For clinically node-positive breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, approximately 40 % will be found to be pathologically node negative. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1071 trial was therefore conducted to evaluate sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) in these patients. The trial’s primary end point was to determine the false-negative rate (FNR) among patients with clinical N1 disease in whom at least 2 sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were identified. The FNR was 12.6 %, which exceeded the prespecified end point of 10.0 %. After data publication, our multidisciplinary team discussed the trial results and how we may incorporate the findings into clinical practice. Patient selection and surgical technique are critical. As an example, when dual tracer technique was used, the FNR was 10.8 %. Data from the trial presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium suggested that the FNR could be improved if a clip was placed in the biopsy-proven positive lymph node and removal of that node during SLND was confirmed. Taking this into consideration, we have proposed an approach to surgical management of the axilla in clinically node-positive patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy termed targeted axillary dissection (TAD). TAD involves placing a clip at the time a lymph node is determined to be positive. After completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the clipped node is localized by using a wire or radioactive seed, and during the SLND procedure, all SLNs and the clipped node are removed. We are currently evaluating the efficacy of TAD in axillary staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The role and outcome of radical surgery in contemporary multidisciplinary management of breast cancer patients presenting with isolated sternal or full-thickness chest wall (SCW) recurrence are undefined compared with patients treated without surgery. Detailed analyses of all patients with isolated SCW recurrence treated from 1992 to 2011 at a large cancer institution were performed. Univariate and multivariate comparisons of clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics were analyzed. Overall and progression-free survival were compared using the Kaplan–Meier method. Seventy-six patients were identified, 44 treated surgically and 32 nonsurgically. Overall survival at 5 years was not statistically different between patients who underwent surgery and those who did not (30.6 and 49.6 %, respectively; P = 0.52) although patients selected for surgery presented with more advanced and biologically aggressive disease. Surgically treated patients were more likely to have triple-negative breast cancer at recurrence (52 vs. 17 %; P = 0.006). Among surgical patients, 95 % received preoperative systemic therapy. Clinical response with systemic therapy was significantly different, with surgically treated patients more likely to have responsive or stable disease (54 vs. 25 %, P = 0.04). Complications related to radical surgical resection occurred in 25 % of patients. For hormone receptor–positive recurrence, 5-year progression-free survival was significantly higher among surgical patients (46.3 vs. 14.5 %; P = 0.01). Among patients with isolated SCW recurrence, hormone receptor-positive recurrence is associated with improved survival. Systemic therapy should be the initial treatment, and clinical response can be used to help select patients who may benefit from radical resection.