Search

Background: Axillary management for node-positive breast cancer continues to evolve. Data further supporting targeted axillary dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was published in 2016 and may have induced changes in practice., Methods: Patients included in the National Cancer Database from 2014 to 2017 with clinical T1 to T4 and node-positive disease who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgical axillary management were evaluated. Patients were divided into the following 3 groups: selective axillary dissection, minimal axillary dissection, and maximal axillary dissection, according to surgical axillary management and pathological node status., Results: Patients who underwent selective axillary dissection were younger (52.4 years ± 12.4, P < .0001) compared to maximal axillary dissection (55.1 ± 12.7) and minimal axillary dissection (54.6 ± 12.7). Patients with higher clinical stage more frequently underwent maximal axillary dissection, and those with lower tumor grade more frequently underwent minimal axillary dissection (P < .0001). Community cancer programs were more likely to perform maximal axillary dissection compared to all other types of programs and had the slowest rate of adoption of selective axillary dissection. Integrated Network Cancer Programs had the lowest proportion of maximal axillary dissection performed and the highest proportion of selective axillary dissection. Uninsured patients were more likely to receive maximal axillary dissection, and those with private insurance were more likely to undergo selective axillary dissection (P < .0001). Selective axillary dissection rates increased from 29.8% of procedures in 2016 to 41.5% in 2017, and MaxAD rates decreased from 62.4% in 2016 to 47.9% in 2017., Conclusion: Utilization of selective axillary dissection has increased since 2016; however, discrepancies in surgical axillary management after neoadjuvant chemotherapy still exist., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) was standard treatment for breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) until 2011, when data from the Z11 and AMAROS trials challenged its survival benefit in early stage breast cancer. We assessed the contribution of patient, tumor, and facility factors on cALND use in patients undergoing mastectomy and SLN biopsy., Patients and Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, patients diagnosed from 2012 to 2017 who underwent upfront mastectomy and SLN biopsy with at least one positive SLN were included. A multivariable mixed effects logistic regression model was used to determine the effect of patient, tumor, and facility variables on cALND use. Reference effect measures (REM) were used to compare the contribution of general contextual effects (GCE) to variation in cALND use., Results: From 2012 to 2017, the overall use of cALND decreased from 81.3% to 68.0%. Overall, younger patients, larger tumors, higher grade tumors, and tumors with lymphovascular invasion were more likely to undergo cALND. Facility variables, including higher surgical volume and facility location in the Midwest, were associated with increased use of cALND. However, REM results showed that the contribution of GCE to the variation in cALND use exceeded that of the measured patient, tumor, facility, and time variables., Conclusions: There was a decrease in cALND use during the study period. However, cALND was frequently performed in women after mastectomy found to have a positive SLN. There is high variability in cALND use, mainly driven by interfacility practice variation rather than specific high-risk patient and/or tumor characteristics., (© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Objective: To assess the contribution of unknown institutional factors (contextual effects) in the de-implementation of cALND in women with breast cancer., Summary of Background Data: Women included in the National Cancer Database with invasive breast carcinoma from 2012 to 2016 that underwent upfront lumpectomy and were found to have a positive sentinel node., Methods: A multivariable mixed effects logistic regression model with a random intercept for site was used to determine the effect of patient, tumor, and institutional variables on the risk of cALND. Reference effect measureswere used to describe and compare the contribution of contextual effects to the variation in cALND use to that of measured variables., Results: By 2016, cALND was still performed in at least 50% of the patients in a quarter of the institutions. Black race, younger women and those with larger or hormone negative tumors were more likely to undergo cALND. However, the width of the 90% reference effect measures range for the contextual effects exceeded that of the measured site, tumor, time, and patient demographics, suggesting institutional contextual effects were the major drivers of cALND de-implementation. For instance, a woman at an institution with low-risk of performing cALND would have 74% reduced odds of havinga cALND than if she was treated at a median-risk institution, while a patient at a high-risk institution had 3.91 times the odds., Conclusion: Compared to known patient, tumor, and institutional factors, contextual effects had a higher contribution to the variation in cALND use., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Receiving a new breast cancer diagnosis can cause anxiety and distress, which can lead to psychologic morbidity, decreased treatment adherence, and worse clinical outcomes. Understanding sources of distress is crucial in providing comprehensive care. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between delays in breast cancer diagnosis and patient-reported distress. Secondary outcomes include assessing patient characteristics associated with delay. Methods: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who completed a distress screening tool at their initial evaluation at an academic institution between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. The tool captured distress levels in the emotional, social, health, and practical domains with scores of "high distress" defined by current clinical practice guidelines. Delay from mammogram to biopsy, whether diagnostic or screening mammogram, was defined as >30 days. Result: 745 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients met inclusion criteria. Median time from abnormal mammogram to core biopsy was 12 days, and 11% of patients experienced a delay in diagnosis. The non-delayed group had higher emotional (p = 0.04) and health (p = 0.03) distress than the delayed group. No statistically significant differences in social distress were found between groups. Additionally, patients with higher practical distress had longer time interval between mammogram and surgical intervention compared to those with lower practical distress. Older age, diagnoses of invasive lobular carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, and clinical anatomic stages 0-I were associated with diagnostic delay. Conclusion: Patients with higher emotional or health-related distress were more likely to have timely diagnoses of breast cancer, suggesting that patients with higher distress may seek healthcare interventions more promptly. Improved understanding of sources of distress will permit early intervention regarding the devastating impact of breast cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]