Search

Introduction: The Commission on Cancer/National Quality Forum breast radiotherapy quality measure establishes that for women < 70 years, adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (BCS) should be started < 1 year from diagnosis. This was intended to prevent accidental radiotherapy omission or delay due to a long interval between surgery and chemotherapy completion, when radiation is delivered. However, the impact on patients not receiving chemotherapy, who proceed from surgery directly to radiotherapy, remains unknown., Patients and Methods: Patients aged 18-69, diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer as their first and only cancer diagnosis (2004-2016), having BCS, for whom this measure would be applicable, were reviewed from the National Cancer Database., Results: Among 308,521 patients, the median age was 57.0 years, and > 99% of all patients were compliant with the measure. The cohort of interest included 186,650 (60.5%) patients not receiving chemotherapy, with a mean age of 57.9 years. Of these, 90.5% received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 9.5% brachytherapy. Among them, 24.9% started radiotherapy > 8 weeks after surgery. In a multivariable model, delay from surgery to radiotherapy increased the hazard ratios for overall survival to 9.0% (EBRT) per month and 3.0% (brachytherapy) per week., Conclusion: While 99.9% of patients undergoing BCS without chemotherapy remain compliant with the current quality measure, 25% have delays > 8 weeks to start radiation, which is associated with impaired survival. These data suggest that the current quality measure should be dichotomized into two, with or without chemotherapy, in order to impel prompt radiotherapy initiation and maximize outcomes in all patients., (© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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 < 0.001) and with DCIS with microinvasion (DCIS-M) (40.7% pre versus 52.3% post, p < 0.001). For patients with invasive disease with extensive intraductal component (EIC) and a close margin, preference to avoid re-excision was similar (51.2% per versus 55.2% post, p = 0.071)., Conclusion: Since guideline publication, surgeons are less likely to perform re-excision to obtain a margin greater than 2-mm and more likely to perform re-excision to obtain a 2-mm margin for both pure DCIS and DCIS-M. Preference to avoid re-excision with a close margin and EIC was similar before and after publication.

Purpose: Controversy exists regarding the optimal negative margin width for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast irradiation., Methods: A multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 20 studies including 7,883 patients and other published literature as the evidence base for consensus., Results: Negative margins halve the risk of IBTR compared with positive margins defined as ink on DCIS. A 2-mm margin minimizes the risk of IBTR compared with smaller negative margins. More widely clear margins do not significantly decrease IBTR compared with 2-mm margins. Negative margins narrower than 2 mm alone are not an indication for mastectomy, and factors known to affect rates of IBTR should be considered in determining the need for re-excision., Conclusion: Use of a 2-mm margin as the standard for an adequate margin in DCIS treated with whole-breast irradiation is associated with lower rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs. Clinical judgment should be used in determining the need for further surgery in patients with negative margins narrower than 2 mm.

Background: The recently published SSO-ASTRO consensus guideline on margins concluded "no ink on tumor" is the standard for an adequate margin. This study was conducted to determine how this guideline is aligned with current clinical practice., Methods: A survey was sent to 3057 members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Questions assessed respondents' clinical practice type and duration, familiarity with the guideline, and preferences for margin re-excision., Results: Of those surveyed, 777 (25%) responded. Most (92%) indicated familiarity with the guideline. Of these respondents, the majority (n = 678, or 94.7%) would re-excise all or most of the time when tumor extended to the inked margin. Very few (n = 9, or 1.3%) would re-excise all or most of the time when tumor was within 2 mm of the margin. Over 12 % (n = 90) would re-excise all or most of the time for a triple-negative tumor within 1 mm of the margin, whereas 353 (49.6%) would re-excise all or most of the time when imaging and pathology were discordant, and tumor was within 1 mm of multiple margins. Finally, 330 (45.8%) would re-excise all or most of the time when multiple foci of ductal carcinoma in situ extended to within 1 mm of multiple inked margins., Conclusions: Surgeons are in agreement to re-excise margins when tumor touches ink and generally not to perform re-excisions when tumor is close to (but not touching) the inked margin. For more complex scenarios, surgeons are utilizing their individual clinical judgment to determine the need for re-excision.

Purpose: Controversy exists regarding the optimal margin width in breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer., Methods: A multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 33 studies including 28,162 patients as the primary evidence base for consensus., Results: Positive margins (ink on invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ) are associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of IBTR compared with negative margins. This increased risk is not mitigated by favorable biology, endocrine therapy, or a radiation boost. More widely clear margins than no ink on tumor do not significantly decrease the rate of IBTR compared with no ink on tumor. There is no evidence that more widely clear margins reduce IBTR for young patients or for those with unfavorable biology, lobular cancers, or cancers with an extensive intraductal component., Conclusion: The use of no ink on tumor as the standard for an adequate margin in invasive cancer in the era of multidisciplinary therapy is associated with low rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs.

Background: Breast cancer subtypes (BCS) determined from immunohistochemical staining have been correlated with molecular subtypes and associated with prognosis and outcomes, but there are limited data correlating these BCS and axillary node involvement. This study was conducted to assess whether BCS predicted for nodal metastasis or was associated with other clinicopathologic features at presentation., Methods: Patients with stage I/II disease who underwent breast-conserving surgery and axillary surgical assessment with available tissue blocks underwent a institutional pathological review and construction of a tissue microarray. The slides were stained for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2/neu (HER-2) for classification into BCS. Nodal involvement and other clinicopathologic features were analyzed to assess associations between BCS and patient and tumor characteristics. Outcomes were calculated a function of BCS., Results: The study cohort consisted of 453 patients (luminal A 48.6%, luminal B 16.1%, HER-2 11.0%, triple negative 24.2%), of which 22% (n=113) were node positive. There were no significant associations with BCS and pN stage, node positivity, or absolute number of nodes involved (p>0.05 for all). However, there were significant associations with subtype and age at presentation (p<0.001), method of detection (p=0.049), tumor histology (p<0.001), race (p=0.041), and tumor size (pT stage, p<0.001) by univariate and multivariate analysis. As expected, 10-year outcomes differed by BCS, with triple negative and HER-2 subtypes having the worse overall (p=0.03), disease-free (p=0.03), and distant metastasis-free survival (p<0.01)., Conclusions: There is a significant association between BCS and age, T stage, histology, method of detection, and race, but no associations to predict nodal involvement. If additionally validated, these findings suggest that BCS may not be a useful prognostic variable for influencing regional management considerations.