Search

Christina A Dilaveri,1 Nicole P Sandhu,1 Lonzetta Neal,1 Michelle A Neben-Wittich,1,2 Tina J Hieken,3 Maire Brid Mac Bride,1 Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler,1 Karthik Ghosh1 1Division of General Internal Medicine, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, 3Division of Subspecialty General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA Abstract: Radiation therapy is an important and effective adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Numerous health conditions may affect medical decisions regarding tolerance of breast radiation therapy. These factors must be considered during the decision-making process after breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy for breast cancer. Here, we review currently available evidence focusing on medical conditions that may affect the patient–provider decision-making process regarding the use of radiation therapy. Keywords: cardiac devices, connective tissue disease, prior radiation

In inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), obstructed lymphatics present a barrier to sentinel node biopsy. In theory this challenge could be overcome by clipping the clinically positive node at presentation and surgically retrieving it after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). If the clipped node accurately reflects the axillary status, then deescalation of axillary nodal dissection could be a possibility in IBC with complete pathological nodal response post-NAC., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) has been proposed to decrease lymphedema rates. The primary aim of our study was to determine whether ILR decreased the incidence of lymphedema in patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND)., Methods: We conducted a two-site pragmatic study of ALND with or without ILR, employing surgeon-level cohort assignment, based on breast surgeons' preferred standard practice. Lymphedema was assessed by limb volume measurements, patient self-reporting, provider documentation, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes., Results: Overall, 230 patients with breast cancer were enrolled; on an intention-to-treat basis, 99 underwent ALND and 131 underwent ALND with ILR. Of the 131 patients preoperatively planned for ILR, 115 (87.8%) underwent ILR; 72 (62.6%) were performed by one breast surgical oncologist and 43 (37.4%) by fellowship-trained microvascular plastic surgeons. ILR was associated with an increased risk of lymphedema when defined as ≥10% limb volume change on univariable analysis, but not on multivariable analysis, after propensity score adjustment. We did not find a statistically significant difference in limb volume measurements between the two cohorts when including subclinical lymphedema (≥5% inter-limb volume change), nor did we see a difference in grade between the two cohorts on an intent-to-treat or treatment received basis. For all patients, considering ascertainment strategies of patient self-reporting, provider documentation, and ICD-10 codes, as a single binary outcome measure, there was no significant difference in lymphedema rates between those undergoing ILR or not., Conclusion: We found no significant difference in lymphedema rates between patients undergoing ALND with or without ILR., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard for management of the axilla in inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). The present study aims to determine whether the initially positive node identified by clip placement accurately represents the overall nodal status of axilla after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in IBC., Patients and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with IBC who underwent operation (2014-2023). For patients with IBC who had clip placement in a positive axillary node at diagnosis, operative notes, specimen radiographs, and pathology reports were reviewed to confirm final pathologic status of clipped nodes., Results: In total, 92 patients with IBC (90 cN+) were identified (median age 54 years, 78% invasive ductal, 10% invasive lobular, and 12% mixed); 81 (90%) were biopsy-proven cN+, with a clip placed in the positive node for 62/81 (77%). All patients were treated with NAC and axillary surgery with median 19 (range 4-49) nodes removed. Among 28 (out of 56) patients with retrieved clipped nodes that were pathologically negative (ypN0), only 1 had an additional positive node with micrometastasis for a false negative rate of 4% (95% CI 1-19%). Conversely, 3/3 patients with isolated tumor cells (ITCs) only in the clipped node had additional axillary disease (ITCs in 1, macrometastasis in 2), and 20/23 (87%) of patients with pathologically positive clipped node (micrometastasis or greater) had additional positive nodes [19/20 (95%) with macrometastasis]., Conclusions: The clipped biopsy-positive axillary node in IBC accurately represented the post-NAC overall axillary nodal status. ITCs post-NAC should be considered positive as an indicator of additional nodes with metastasis., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The optimal approach for partial breast irradiation (PBI) is unknown. We investigated a novel de-intensified 3-fraction PBI regimen for photons, protons, and brachytherapy., Methods: A multicenter nonrandomized controlled trial with primary outcome of adverse cosmesis at 3 years versus pre-PBI. Eligibility criteria were ≥ age 50 years treated with breast-conserving surgery for node-negative estrogen receptor positive (ER+) invasive breast cancer or any ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) measuring ≤ 2.5 cm. Photon and proton PBI were prescribed 21.9 Gy (RBE) and brachytherapy 21 Gy in 3 fractions. Radiotherapy technique and use of adjuvant endocrine therapy was selected at physician and patient discretion., Results: Between June 17, 2015 and July 13, 2017, 161 eligible patients were treated with photons (56), protons (49), or brachytherapy (56). Median patient age was 66.8 years. 126 (78.3%) had invasive breast cancer (all ER+) and 35 (21.7%) had DCIS (88.6% ER+). 54.0% of patients with invasive breast cancer and 25.8% of patients with ER+ DCIS initiated and adhered to prescribed endocrine therapy. The proportion of patients with adverse cosmesis (by trained nurse assessment) was 14.5% at baseline, 2.3% at 3 years (difference -12.2%, 95% CI (-100%, -6.4%)). Adverse cosmesis at last-follow-up, with median follow-up 5 years, was 5.7% by nurse assessment, 5.6% by panel assessment of digital photographs, and 5.2% by patient self-report. There were no observed clinically meaningful changes in other patient reported outcomes, and just two grade 2 or higher adverse events, both grade 2, in the brachytherapy cohort. 5-year local recurrence-free and progression-free survival were 98.0% and 95.5%, respectively. There were no local recurrences amongst 60 patients with invasive breast cancer and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%., Conclusions: De-intensified 3-day PBI provided favorable disease control, tolerability, and cosmetic outcomes, meeting the pre-specified criteria for acceptability. This approach is an attractive option for small node-negative ER+ BC and DCIS patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02453737., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Germline genetic mutations in women with phyllodes tumors (PT) are understudied, although some describe associations of PT with various mutations. We sought to determine the prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in women with PT., Methods: A 6-site multi-center study of women with a PT was initiated, then expanded nationally through an online "Phyllodes Support Group." All women underwent 84-gene panel testing. We defined eligibility for testing based on select NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) criteria (v1.2022). Logistic regression was used to estimate the association of covariates with the likelihood of a P/LP variant., Results: 274 women were enrolled: 164 (59.9%) through multi-center recruitment and 110 (40.1%) via online recruitment. 248 women completed testing; overall 14.1% (N = 35) had a P/LP variant, and over half (N = 19) of these individuals had a mutation in genes associated with autosomal dominant (AD) cancer conditions. The most common AD genes with a P/LP variant included CHEK2, ATM, and RAD51D. A quarter of participants (23.8%) met NCCN criteria for testing, but we found no difference in prevalence of a P/LP variant based on eligibility (p = 0.54). After adjustment, the presence of P/LP variants was not associated with age, NCCN testing eligibility, or PT type (all p > 0.05)., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that 7.7% of women with PT harbor germline P/LP variants in genes associated with AD cancer conditions. Early identification of these variants has implications for screening, risk reduction, and/or treatment. National guidelines for women with PT do not currently address germline genetic testing, which could be considered., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Among inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) patients, over one-third have HER2-overexpressing (HER2+) tumors. Pathologic complete response (pCR) rates to neoadjuvant targeted and chemotherapy for patients with HER2+ non-metastatic IBC now apporach 60% and favorable long-term survival rates are being reported for those with a pCR. Immune mechanisms contributing to this phenomenon include antibody-mediated immune activation and induction of memory T-cell reponses which may explain the sustained antitumor response seen after discontinuation of targeted therapies., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Melanoma guidelines stem largely from data on non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients. We aimed to identify features of melanoma within non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients to inform strategies for earlier detection and treatment., Methods: From 2004 to 2019 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, we identified nonmetastatic melanoma patients with known TN category and race. Kaplan-Meier cancer-specific survival (CSS) estimates and multivariable Cox proportional hazard modeling analyses were performed., Results: Of 492 597 patients, 1499 (0.3%) were NHB, who were younger (21% vs. 17% age <50) and more commonly female (54% vs. 41%) than NHW, both p < 0.0005. For NHBs, lower extremity was the most common site (52% vs. 15% for NHWs, p < 0.0001), T category was higher (55% Tis-T1 vs. 82%; 27% T3-T4 vs. 8%, p < 0.0001) and stage at presentation was higher (19% Stage III, vs. 6%, p < 0.0001). Within the NHB cohort, males were older, and more often node-positive than females. Five-year Stage III CSS was 42% for NHB males versus 71% for females, adjusting for age and clinical nodal status (hazard ratio 2.48)., Conclusions: NHB melanoma patients presented with distinct tumor characteristics. NHB males with Stage III disease had inferior CSS. Focus on this high-risk patient cohort to promote earlier detection and treatment may improve outcomes., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Melanoma diagnosed within 1 year of pregnancy is defined as pregnancy-associated melanoma (PAM). No robust data on how pregnancy influences melanoma nor guidelines for PAM management exist. With IRB approval, female patients with a pathology-confirmed melanoma diagnosis within 1 year of pregnancy treated at our institution from 2000 to 2020 were identified. Controls from the cancer registry were matched 1 : 4 when available on decade of age, year of surgery (±5), and stage. We identified 83 PAM patients with median follow-up of 86 months. Mean age at diagnosis was 31 years. 80% AJCC V8 stage I, 2.4% stage II, 13% stage III, 4.8% stage IV. Mean Breslow thickness was 0.79 mm and 3.6% exhibited ulceration. The mean mitotic rate was 0.76/mm 2 . In terms of PAM management, 98.6% of ESD patients and 86.7% of LSD patients received standard-of-care therapy per NCCN guidelines for their disease stage. No clinically significant delays in treatment were noted. Time to treatment from diagnosis to systemic therapy for LSD patients was an average of 46 days (95% CI: 34-59 days). Comparing the 83 PAM patients to 309 controls matched on age, stage, and year of diagnosis, similar 5-year overall survival (97% vs. 97%, P  = 0.95) or recurrence-free survival (96% vs. 96%, P  = 0.86) was observed. The outcomes of PAM following SOC treatment at a highly specialized center for melanoma care were comparable to non-PAM when matched by clinical-pathologic features. Specialty center care is encouraged for women with PAM., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Competing Interests: ROB has received institutional research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Endomagnetics, SkyLineDx, and NeraCare, speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Pierre-Fabre, and consulting fees for serving on advisory boards for Amgen, BARD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme, and is a shareholder in SATMEG Ventures. TJH has received institutional research grants from Genentech and SkylineDx.

Importance: Adding fulvestrant to anastrozole (A+F) improved survival in postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. However, the combination has not been tested in early-stage disease., Objective: To determine whether neoadjuvant fulvestrant or A+F increases the rate of pathologic complete response or ypT1-2N0/N1mic/Ki67 2.7% or less residual disease (referred to as endocrine-sensitive disease) over anastrozole alone., Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing differences in clinical and correlative outcomes between each of the fulvestrant-containing arms and the anastrozole arm. Postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III, ER-rich (Allred score 6-8 or >66%)/ERBB2-negative breast cancer were included. All analyses were based on data frozen on March 2, 2023., Interventions: Patients received anastrozole, fulvestrant, or a combination for 6 months preoperatively. Tumor Ki67 was assessed at week 4 and optionally at week 12, and if greater than 10% at either time point, the patient switched to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or immediate surgery., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the endocrine-sensitive disease rate (ESDR). A secondary outcome was the percentage change in Ki67 after 4 weeks of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) (week 4 Ki67 suppression)., Results: Between February 2014 and November 2018, 1362 female patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [8.2] years) were enrolled. Among the 1298 evaluable patients, ESDRs were 18.7% (95% CI, 15.1%-22.7%), 22.8% (95% CI, 18.9%-27.1%), and 20.5% (95% CI, 16.8%-24.6%) with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Compared to anastrozole, neither fulvestrant-containing regimen significantly improved ESDR or week 4 Ki67 suppression. The rate of week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10% was 25.1%, 24.2%, and 15.7% with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Pathologic complete response/residual cancer burden class I occurred in 8 of 167 patients and 17 of 167 patients, respectively (15.0%; 95% CI, 9.9%-21.3%), after switching to neoadjuvant chemotherapy due to week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. PAM50 subtyping derived from RNA sequencing of baseline biopsies available for 753 patients (58%) identified 394 luminal A, 304 luminal B, and 55 nonluminal tumors. A+F led to a greater week 4 Ki67 suppression than anastrozole alone in luminal B tumors (median [IQR], -90.4% [-95.2 to -81.9%] vs -76.7% [-89.0 to -55.6%]; P < .001), but not luminal A tumors. Thirty-six nonluminal tumors (65.5%) had a week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither fulvestrant nor A+F significantly improved the 6-month ESDR over anastrozole in ER-rich/ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Aromatase inhibition remains the standard-of-care NET. Differential NET response by PAM50 subtype in exploratory analyses warrants further investigation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588.

Background and Objectives: Current NCCN guidelines discourage repeat sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery in patients with local recurrence (LR) of breast cancer following prior mastectomy. This study addresses the feasibility and therapeutic impact of this approach., Methods: We identified 73 patients managed with repeat SLN surgery for post-mastectomy isolated LR. Lymphatic mapping was performed using radioisotope with or without lymphoscintigraphy and/or blue dye. Successful SLN surgery was defined as retrieval of ≥1 SLN., Results: SLN surgery was successful in 65/73 (89%), identifying a median of 2 (range 1-4) SLNs, with 10/65 (15%) SLN-positive. Among these, 5/10 (50%) proceeded to ALND. In unsuccessful cases, 1/8 (13%) proceeded to ALND. Seven of 10 SLN-positive patients and 50/55 SLN-negative patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. Chemotherapy was administered in 31 (42%) and endocrine therapy in 50 of 57 HR+ patients (88%). After 28 months median follow-up, eight patients relapsed with the first site local in two, distant in five, and synchronous local/distant in one. No nodal recurrences were observed., Conclusions: SLN surgery for patients with LR post-mastectomy is feasible and informative. This approach appears oncologically sound, decreases axillary dissection rates and may be used to tailor adjuvant radiation target volumes and systemic therapies., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: In July 2016, the American Society of Breast Surgeons published guidelines discouraging contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer. We incorporated these into practice with structured patient counseling and aimed to assess the effect of this initiative on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates., Methods: We evaluated female patients with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy at our institution from January 2011 to November 2022. Variables associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and trends over time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or χ 2 analysis as appropriate., Results: Among 3,208 patients, (median age 54 years) 1,366 (43%) had a unilateral mastectomy, and 1,842 (57%) also had a concomitant contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Across all patients, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates significantly decreased post-implementation from 2017 to 2019 (55%) vs 2015 to 2016 (62%) (P = .01) but increased from 2020 to 2022 (61%). Immediate breast reconstruction rate was 70% overall (81% with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and 56% without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, P < .001). Younger age, White race, mutation status, and earlier stage were also associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Genetic testing increased from 27% pre-guideline to 74% 2020 to 2022, as did the proportion of patients with a pathogenic variant (4% pre-guideline vs 11% from 2020-2022, P < .001), of whom 91% had a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Among tested patients without a pathogenic variant and patients not tested, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates declined from 78% to 67% and 48% to 38% pre -and post-guidelines, respectively, P < .001., Conclusion: Implementation of specific patient counseling was effective in decreasing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates. While recognizing that patient choice plays a significant role in the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, further educational efforts are warranted to affect contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates, particularly in the setting of negative genetic testing., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Both targeted therapies and immunotherapies provide benefit in resected Stage III melanoma. We hypothesized that the combination of targeted and immunotherapy given prior to therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) would be tolerable and drive robust pathologic responses. In NeoACTIVATE (NCT03554083), a Phase II trial, patients with clinically evident resectable Stage III melanoma received either 12 weeks of neoadjuvant vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and atezolizumab (BRAF-mutated, Cohort A, n = 15), or cobimetinib and atezolizumab (BRAF-wild-type, Cohort B, n = 15) followed by TLND and 24 weeks of adjuvant atezolizumab. Here, we report outcomes from the neoadjuvant portion of the trial. Based on intent to treat analysis, pathologic response (≤50% viable tumor) and major pathologic response (complete or near-complete, ≤10% viable tumor) were observed in 86.7% and 66.7% of BRAF-mutated and 53.3% and 33.3% of BRAF-wild-type patients, respectively (primary outcome); these exceeded pre-specified benchmarks of 50% and 30% for major pathologic response. Grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily dermatologic, occurred in 63% during neoadjuvant treatment (secondary outcome). No surgical delays nor progression to regional unresectability occurred (secondary outcome). Peripheral blood CD8 + T CM cell expansion associated with favorable pathologic responses (exploratory outcome)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAF V600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CA—Other: Stock Pfizer, Advisory Board: Iovance and Merck, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. EIB—Consulting Fees: Nektar, Instilbio, Novartis, Xilio, Sanofi, Merck, and Iovance. DD—IP Rights: US Patent 63/124,231, Compositions and Methods for Treating Cancer, December 11, 2020, US Patent 63/208,719, Compositions and Methods For Determining Responsiveness to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI), Increasing Effectiveness of ICI and Treating Cancer, June 9, 2021; Consulting Fees: Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Finch, Shionogi, Vedanta Biosciences; Fees for Non CE Services: Medical Learning Group (MLG), Clinical Care Options (CCO); Contracted Research: Arcus, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, Immunocore, Merck, Tesaro/GSK. GTG—Consulting Fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, Merck, Sapience Therapeutics, Exicure, Eisai, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, and HUYABIO International; Contracted Research: Exelixis (institutional support), Lucerno Dynamics. OH—Researcher: Arcus, Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Bioatla, BMS, Cytomx, Exelixis, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Iovance, Merck, Moderna, Merck Serono, Nextcure, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seattle Gen, Torque, Zelluna; Consultant Advisor Speaker: Alkermes, Amgen, Bactonix, Beigene, Bioatla, BMS, Esai, Roche Genentech, Georiamune, GigaGen, Grit Bio, GSK, Idera, Immunocore, Incyte, Instilbio, IO Biotech, Iovance, Janssen, KSQ, Merck, Moderna, Novartis, Obsidian, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Gen, Tempus, Vial Health Tech, Zelluna; Independent Contractor: Alkermes, Amgen, Bactonix, Beigene, Bioatla, BMS, Esai, Roche Genentech, Georiamune, GigaGen, Grit Bio, GSK, Idera, Immunocore, Incyte, Instilbio, IO Biotech, Iovance, Janssen, KSQ, Merck, Moderna, Novartis, Obsidian, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Gen, Tempus, Vial Health Tech, Zelluna; Publically Traded Stocks: Bactonix. TJH—Contracted Research: Genentech, SkylineDX. BI—Consulting Fees: Johnson & Johnson, Volastra Therapeutics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; research funding to Columbia University from Alkermes, Arcus Biosciences, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Compugen, Immunocore, and Synthekine. DBJ—IP Rights: MHC-II for use as immunotherapy biomarker, Abatacept as treatment for irAEs; Consulting Fees: BMS, Catalyst, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoIngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax; Contracted Research: BMS, Incyte. RPK—Consulting Fees: Regeneron. JJL—Researcher: AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, Xencor; Consultant Advisor Speaker: AbbVie, Agenus, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Replimmune, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, Synthekine 7 Hills, Affivant, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio (stock) Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, physIQ, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest, AbbVie, Agenus, Amgen, Immutep, Evaxion. TCM—Consulting Fees: Merck, BMS, GigaGen, OncoSec; Pfizer – Scientific Advisory Board. MJM—Consulting Fees: AstraZeneca, Nektar Therapeutics, Istari Oncology, Immunai, Xilio Therapeutics; Fees for Non CE Services: Bristol Myers Squibb (served as a speaker). ACP—Consulting Fees: Regeneron, BMS, Merck; Fees for Non CE Services: BMS; Contracted Research: Merck, BMS, Iovance, Regeneron, Takeda, Ideaya, Replimune: All payments to institution. KMR—Consulting Fees: BMS, Merck, Eisai, Immunocore. AKSS—Consulting Fees: Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Iovance. Contracted Research: Ascentage, Ideaya, Regeneron, Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck, Nektar, Olatec, Replimune, Seagen. KS—Contracted Research: Trials at Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Syndax, Provectus, OmniSeq, BrightPath Biotherapeutics, Ludwig Institute of Cancer Research, Hlsinn, AbbVie, BMS, OncoSec, Ultimovacs, Altellas, AstraZeneca, Xencor, Exicure, Numab, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Natera. RJS—Reseracher: Merck (research funding); Consultant Advisor Speaker: BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer; Other: Faculty for SCION Workshop. JT—Consulting Fees: GSK, Genentech, BMS, Akoya Biosciences, Merck, AstraZeneca, Compugen, Lunaphore; Contracted Research: BMS, Akoya Biosciences; Other: Akoya Biosciences; Other Details: Patent pending for multiplexing imaging strategy; Ownership Interest Less Than 5 Per Cent: Akoya Biosciences. HAT—Consulting Fees: Genentech, BMS, Novartis, Merck, Eisai, Karyopharm, Boxer Capital, Iovance, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medicenna; Contracted Research: Genentech, BMS, Novartis, Merck, GSK, EMD Serono, Eisai, Dragonfly Therapeutics, RAPT Therapeutics. JKT—Nothing to Disclose. CV—Nothing to Disclose. SAW—Consulting Fees: Lyell; Contracted Research: research funds to institution from BMS and Apexigen. MKW—Consulting Fees: Merck, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, EMD-Serono, ExiCure, Castle Biosciences, Adagene. SITC Staff—CG, AK, NL, SM-W—Nothing to Disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Anorectal melanoma is an aggressive mucosal melanoma subtype with a poor prognosis. Although recent advancements have been seen for cutaneous melanoma, the optimal treatment paradigm for management of anorectal melanoma is evolving. In this review, we highlight differences in the pathogenesis of mucosal versus cutaneous melanoma, new concepts of staging for mucosal melanoma, updates to surgical management of anorectal melanoma, and current data for adjuvant radiation and systemic therapy in this unique patient population., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background/objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic motivated telemedicine care to decrease potential exposures for both patients and staff. We hypothesized that select breast surgical patients can be successfully evaluated pre-operatively with telemedicine., Methods: With institutional review board approval, patients with telemedicine surgical consults between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were identified retrospectively from our prospective breast surgical registry. The frequency of successful pre-operative evaluation using telemedicine alone was assessed, defined as cases in which surgery was completed on the planned day without changes to the surgical plan after physical examination in the pre-operative area. Differences in disease presentation, patient characteristics, and complications were evaluated by whether the first in-person visit occurred on the day of surgery versus the prior., Results: A total of 374 patients underwent breast surgery between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2020, of which 96 (25.7%) had a telemedicine consultation. After the telemedicine visit, 38 patients (39.6%) had additional in-person visits with the breast surgeon prior to their operative date, and 58 patients (60.4%) did not. Forty-five patients underwent breast-conserving therapies, 41 mastectomies (25 with reconstruction), two axillary dissections, and eight excisional biopsies. All surgeries were completed on the planned operative day, with no changes in surgical plans. Patients with telemedicine only prior to surgery were more likely to speak English (100% vs. 92.1%, p  = 0.02) and have lower body mass index (median 24.9 vs. 29.2, p  = 0.01). The frequency of in-person pre-operative visits varied significantly by surgeon ( p  < 0.001). Age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, distance from facility, clinical T/N category, surgery type, and complications did not differ between groups., Conclusions: Telemedicine can be utilized successfully for select breast surgical patients, with the ability to proceed to surgery in the majority of patients without additional in-person visits.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of trimodality treatment versus monotherapy or dual therapy for radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast (RAASB) after prior breast cancer treatment., Experimental Design: With Institutional Review Board approval, we identified patients diagnosed with RAASB and abstracted data on disease presentation, treatment, and oncologic outcomes. Trimodality therapy included (i) taxane induction, (ii) concurrent taxane/radiation, and then (iii) surgical resection with wide margins., Results: A total of 38 patients (median age 69 years) met inclusion criteria. Sixteen received trimodality therapy and 22 monotherapy/dual therapy. Skin involvement and disease extent were similar in both groups. All trimodality patients required reconstructive procedures for wound closure/coverage, compared with 48% of monotherapy/dual therapy patients (P < 0.001). Twelve of 16 (75%) patients receiving trimodality therapy had a pathologic complete response (pCR). With median follow-up of 5.6 years, none had local recurrence, 1 patient (6%) had distant recurrence, and no patients died. Among 22 patients in the monotherapy/dual therapy group, 10 (45%) had local recurrence, 8 (36%) had distant recurrence, and 7 (32%) died of disease. Trimodality therapy demonstrated significantly better 5-year recurrence-free survival [RFS; 93.8% vs. 42.9%; P = 0.004; HR, 7.6 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.3-44.2)]. Combining all patients with RAASB regardless of treatment, local recurrence was associated with subsequent distant recurrence (HR, 9.0; P = 0.002); distant recurrence developed in 3 of 28 (11%) patients without local recurrence compared with 6 of 10 (60%) with local recurrence. The trimodality group had more surgical complications that required reoperation or prolonged healing., Conclusions: Trimodality therapy for RAASB was more toxic but is promising, with a high rate of pCR, durable local control, and improved RFS., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Triple-negative invasive lobular carcinoma (TN-ILC) of breast cancer is a rare disease and the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors are not well-defined., Methods: Women with stage I-III TN-ILC or triple-negative invasive ductal carcinoma (TN-IDC) of the breast undergoing mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery between 2010 and 2018 in the National Cancer Database were included. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were used to compare overall survival (OS) and evaluate prognostic factors. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the factors associated with pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Results: The median age at diagnosis for women with TN-ILC was 67 years compared to 58 years in TN-IDC (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the OS between TN-ILC and TN-IDC in multivariate analysis (HR 0.96, p = 0.44). Black race and higher TNM stage were associated with worse OS, whereas receipt of chemotherapy or radiation was associated with better OS in TN-ILC. Among women with TN-ILC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 5-year OS was 77.3% in women with a complete pathological response (pCR) compared to 39.8% in women without any response. The odds of achieving pCR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy were significantly lower in women with TN-ILC compared to TN-IDC (OR 0.53, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Women with TN-ILC are older at diagnosis but have similar OS compared to TN-IDC after adjusting for tumor and demographic characteristics. Administration of chemotherapy was associated with improved OS in TN-ILC, but women with TN-ILC were less likely to achieve complete response to neoadjuvant therapy compared to TN-IDC., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Purpose: To evaluate the long-term outcome of accelerated partial breast irradiation utilizing intraoperatively placed applicator-based brachytherapy (ABB) in early-stage breast cancer., Materials and Methods: From our prospective registry, 223 patients with pTis-T2, pN0/pN1mic breast cancer were treated with ABB. The median treatment duration including surgery and ABB was 7 days. The prescribed doses were 32 Gy/8 fx BID (n = 25), 34 Gy/10 fx BID (n = 99), and 21 Gy/3 fx QD (n = 99). Endocrine therapy (ET) adherence was defined as completion of planned ET or ≥ 80% of the follow-up (FU) period. Cumulative incidence of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) was estimated and influencing factors for IBTR-free survival rate (IBTRFS) were analyzed., Results: 218/223 patients had hormone receptor-positive tumors, including 38 (17.0%) with Tis and 185 (83.0%) with invasive cancer. After a median FU of 63 months, 19 (8.5%) patients had recurrence [17 (7.6%) with an IBTR]. Rates of 5-year IBTRFS and DFS were 92.2% and 91.1%, respectively. The 5-year IBTRFS rates were significantly higher for post-menopausal women (93.6% vs. 66.4%, p  = 0.04), BMI < 30 kg/m 2 (97.4% vs. 88.1%, p  = 0.02), and ET-adherence (97.5% vs. 88.6%, p  = 0.02). IBTRFS did not differ with dose regimens., Conclusions: Postmenopausal status, BMI < 30 kg/m 2 , and ET- adherence predicted favorable IBTRFS. Our results highlight the importance of careful patient selection for ABB and encouragement of ET compliance., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma., Summary Background Data: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization., Methods: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics., Results: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients., Conclusions: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Variability in guideline compliance for melanoma lymph node surgery is partially attributable to controversy about patient selection. Prior data has indicated suboptimal practice of sentinel lymph node biopsy and undertreatment of clinically node-positive disease, predating Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II publication. To minimize bias, we studied compliance with lymph node surgery guidelines in T2/T3 (intermediate-thickness) melanoma patients, where the greatest agreement exists., Methods: T2/T3 and metastasis 0 melanoma cases were identified from 2004 to 2018 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Analysis used Cochran-Armitage test for trends, multivariable logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates., Results: Of 66,319 eligible T2/T3 patients, 57,211 were clinically node negative; 2,191 were clinically node positive; 6,197 were clinical node unreported; and 19,044/66,319 (28.8%) had no lymph node surgery. Among clinically node-negative patients, 36,433 (63.7%) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy and 31,026 (85.2%) were pathologically node negative; 1,499 clinically node-positive patients (68.4%) had a lymph node dissection. Lymph node dissection rates declined from 2004 to 2018, 79.8% to 32.0% for clinically node-negative/pathologically node-positive patients and 80.4% to 61.2% for clinically node-positive/pathologically node-positive patients (both P < .0001). For clinically node-negative patients, lymph node surgery compliance improved from 63.7% (2004) to 70.4% (2018) (P < .0001). Compliance correlated with younger age, male sex, tumor mitotic rate, and site (extremity > trunk/head/neck) in multivariable analysis and improved 5-year cancer-specific survival (90.0% vs 83.4%) (all P < .0001)., Conclusions: Despite clear guidelines, one-third of intermediate-thickness melanoma patients in a recent cohort did not have recommended lymph node surgery. Lymph node status is a key determinant of the relative benefit of adjuvant systemic therapy and the need for active surveillance of pathologically node-positive/clinically node-negative patients. These data highlighted a clinical care gap. Efforts to improve guideline compliance are a logical strategy to improve cancer outcomes for intermediate-thickness melanoma patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Previous studies have identified racial-ethnic differences in the diagnostic patterns and recurrence outcomes of women with phyllodes tumors (PT). However, these studies are generally limited in size and generalizability. We therefore sought to explore racial-ethnic differences in age, tumor size, subtype, and recurrence in a large US cohort of women with PT., Methods: We performed an 11-institution retrospective review of women with PT from 2007 to 2017. Differences in age at diagnosis, tumor size and subtype, and recurrence-free survival according to race-ethnicity., Results: Women of non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity were younger at the time of diagnosis with phyllodes tumor. Non-Hispanic Other women had a larger proportion of malignant PT. There were no differences in recurrence-free survival in our cohort., Conclusions: Differences in age, tumor size, and subtype were small. Therefore, the workup of young women with breast masses and the treatment of women with PT should not differ according to race-ethnicity. These conclusions are supported by our finding that there were no differences in recurrence-free survival., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The purpose of this article is to review the objectives of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Operative Standards with a specific focus on Standard 5.5, which pertains to curative intent wide local excision of primary cutaneous melanoma lesions. We review the details and rationale of the standard itself, including its requirement to include specific elements and responses in synoptic format in operative reports., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical stage III melanoma, defined as resectable RECIST measurable nodal disease with or without in-transit metastases, represents approximately 15% of new melanoma diagnoses every year with additional cases presenting as recurrent nodal disease following previous treatment of a primary melanoma. The standard of care for patients with resectable clinical stage III melanoma is surgical resection, consisting of therapeutic lymph node dissection and/or resection of in-transit disease and consideration of adjuvant systemic therapy and occasionally adjuvant radiation. These patients have high rates of regional recurrence and progression to metastatic disease postsurgery, highlighting the need for better treatment options. With the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, the use of these agents in the neoadjuvant setting has been an emerging area of research interest. In this chapter, we will discuss the rationale for neoadjuvant immunotherapy; review impactful clinical trials; and define response monitoring, surgical considerations, emerging therapies, and unanswered questions for neoadjuvant therapy as a recent paradigm shift in the management of clinical stage III melanoma.

Background: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive cutaneous malignancy that usually occurs in the head/neck or extremities. However, there are reports of MCC developing in the lymph nodes or parotid gland without evidence of a primary cutaneous lesion., Methods: We reviewed 415 patients with biopsy-proven MCC. Patients with MCC of unknown primary (n = 37, 9%, MCCUP) made up the study cohort. The primary endpoints of the study were rate of recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival., Results: Patients with MCCUP presented with tumors in lymph nodes (n = 34) or parotid gland (n = 3). Nodal disease was most commonly detected in the inguinal/external iliac (n = 15) or axillary (n = 14) regions. The mean age at diagnosis was 70 years and 24% were female. Patients presented with distant metastases in 24.3% of cases. Patients with stage IIIA disease treated with regional lymph node dissection (RLND) had a lower risk of disease recurrence (hazard ratio 0.26, p = 0.046). Recurrence-free survival was 59.3% at 5 years. Disease-specific survival was 63.3% at 5 years., Conclusion: Patients with MCCUP have a high risk of recurrence and mortality. The optimal treatment for MCCUP has yet to be elucidated, although therapeutic RLND appears beneficial for these patients., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Importance: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer strongly correlates with overall survival and has become the standard end point in neoadjuvant trials. However, there is controversy regarding whether the definition of pCR should exclude or permit the presence of residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)., Objective: To examine the association of residual DCIS in surgical specimens after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer with survival end points to inform standards for the assessment of pathologic complete response., Design, Setting, and Participants: The study team analyzed the association of residual DCIS after NAC with 3-year event-free survival (EFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and local-regional recurrence (LRR) in the I-SPY2 trial, an adaptive neoadjuvant platform trial for patients with breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. This is a retrospective analysis of clinical specimens and data from the ongoing I-SPY2 adaptive platform trial of novel therapeutics on a background of standard of care for early breast cancer. I-SPY2 participants are adult women diagnosed with stage II/III breast cancer at high risk of recurrence., Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive taxane and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy with or without 1 of 10 investigational agents, followed by definitive surgery., Main Outcomes and Measures: The presence of DCIS and EFS, DRFS, and LRR., Results: The study team identified 933 I-SPY2 participants (aged 24 to 77 years) with complete pathology and follow-up data. Median follow-up time was 3.9 years; 337 participants (36%) had no residual invasive disease (residual cancer burden 0, or pCR). Of the 337 participants with pCR, 70 (21%) had residual DCIS, which varied significantly by tumor-receptor subtype; residual DCIS was present in 8.5% of triple negative tumors, 15.6% of hormone-receptor positive tumors, and 36.6% of ERBB2-positive tumors. Among those participants with pCR, there was no significant difference in EFS, DRFS, or LRR based on presence or absence of residual DCIS., Conclusions and Relevance: The analysis supports the definition of pCR as the absence of invasive disease after NAC regardless of the presence or absence of DCIS., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01042379.

The Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery manuals define critical elements of optimal cancer surgery based on data and expert opinion. These key aspects of commonly performed cancer operations define technical standards that can be used as a quality assurance tool for practicing surgical oncologists and as an educational tool for trainees. This article provides background on these operative standards and their subsequent integration into synoptic operative report templates. With the goal of codifying the most important aspects of surgical oncology care to elevate and harmonize cancer care, the American College of Surgeons Cancer Programs has developed comprehensive synoptic operative reports. Synoptic operative reports are structured so that key data elements are recorded in a standardized format with prespecified terminology. In contrast to the narrative or structured operative reports frequently used by surgeons, these synoptic operative reports improve semantic clarity, provide uniform fields for abstraction, and facilitate passive data collection and real-time analytics while delivering key information for downstream multidisciplinary patient care. In this way, the synoptic operative report is a key component of a comprehensive effort to elevate the quality of cancer care nationally., (© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: Fine needle aspiration (FNA) of sonographically suspicious axillary lymph nodes is helpful to clinically stage patients and guide consideration of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer. However, data are limited for suspicious nodes that are FNA negative. Our goal is to compare the frequency of node positivity between patients with negative axillary ultrasound (AUSneg) versus suspicious AUS with negative FNA (FNAneg)., Methods: With IRB approval, we identified all clinically node-negative (cN0) patients with invasive breast cancer treated with upfront surgery at our tertiary care center between 2016 and 2021. AUS is routinely performed with FNA of suspicious lymph node(s). We compared clinicopathologic characteristics and nodal positivity rates between AUSneg and FNAneg groups., Results: A total of 1580 cN0 patients with invasive breast cancer were analyzed, including 1240 AUSneg and 340 FNAneg patients. The FNAneg group was younger (median age 59.7 years versus 63.5 years, p < 0.001) and had higher clinical T (cT) category (29.1% versus 21.7% with cT2-cT4 disease, p = 0.005). Final axillary pathologic node positivity did not differ significantly between the AUSneg and FNAneg groups (16.5% versus 19.1%, p = 0.25). Among FNAneg patients, 58/340 (17.1%) had a clip placed, with retrieval confirmed in 28/58 (48.3%). Of the 28 retrieved clipped nodes, 27 were sentinel nodes. Final pathologic nodal status (pN+%) did not differ between patients in whom retrieval of the clipped node was confirmed versus not confirmed (28.6% versus 16.7%, p = 0.28)., Conclusions: Both patients with sonographically suspicious node(s) and negative FNA and patients with negative AUS have a similarly low chance of positive nodes. Additionally, routine targeted excision of FNA-negative clipped nodes is not warranted., (© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: The distinct histologic appearance of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) may pose diagnostic challenges for sentinel lymph node (SLN) analysis. We evaluated the impact of cytokeratin immunohistochemistry (IHC) on SLN assessment in ILC and its contribution to pathologic nodal upstaging., Methods: We identified ILC patients treated with SLN surgery at our institution between September 2008 and August 2021. IHC for SLN assessment was employed at the discretion of the pathologist. Differences between groups evaluated with and without IHC were compared using Chi-square tests., Results: Overall, 608 cases of ILC were identified in patients who underwent SLN surgery. IHC was used in 301 cases (49.5%) and was not associated with cT category, pT category, or tumor grade. Use of IHC increased detection of SLN+ disease when isolated tumor cells (ITCs) were included in the analysis (35.9% with IHC vs. 21.2% without IHC; p < 0.001). There was no effect on nodal upstaging to micrometastatic disease (pN1mi) or greater (21.9% with IHC vs. 21.2% without IHC; p = 0.82). IHC did not increase the number of positive SLNs detected (median 1 with and without IHC) nor did it increase axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) rates (11.6% with IHC vs. 15.3% without IHC; p = 0.18)., Conclusion: IHC improved detection of pN0(i+) disease among ILC patients undergoing SLN surgery. IHC did not increase upstaging to pN1mi or higher categories of nodal disease, detection of a greater number of positive SLNs, or ALND rates. Our data suggest routine use of IHC for SLN assessment in ILC patients does not add clinical utility., (© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Purpose: To identify the practice patterns related to use of surveillance mammography in male breast cancer (MaBC) survivors., Methods: Using administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse, we identified men who underwent surgery for breast cancer during 2007-2017. We calculated the proportion of men who had at least one mammogram (a) within 13 months for all patients and (b) within 24 months amongst those who maintained their insurance coverage for at least that length of time after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to identify factors associated with mammography within each timeframe., Results: Out of 729 total MaBC survivors, 209 (29%) underwent mammography within 13 months after surgery. Among those who had lumpectomy, 41% underwent mammography, whereas among those who had mastectomy, 27% had mammography. Amongst 526 men who maintained consistent insurance coverage for 24 months after surgery, 215 (41%) underwent mammography at least once during that 24-month period. In this cohort, the proportion who had at least one mammogram during the 24-month period was 49% after lumpectomy and 40% after mastectomy. In a multivariate logistic regression model, more recent diagnosis (2015+) and older age at diagnosis were associated with lower odds of undergoing mammography, while receipt of radiation was associated with higher odds of undergoing mammography., Conclusions: Although recent ASCO guidelines recommend surveillance mammography after lumpectomy, a minority of MaBC survivors undergo surveillance mammography, even after lumpectomy. This is likely due to the paucity of data regarding the true benefits and harms of surveillance/screening mammography for MaBC., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Until recently, most patients with sentinel lymph node-positive (SLN+) melanoma underwent a completion lymph node dissection (CLND), as mandated in published trials of adjuvant systemic therapies. Following multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial-II, most patients with SLN+ melanoma no longer undergo a CLND prior to adjuvant systemic therapy. A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes in SLN+ melanoma patients treated with adjuvant systemic therapy after July 2017 was performed in 21 international cancer centers. Of 462 patients who received systemic adjuvant therapy, 326 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1 without prior immediate (IM) CLND, while 60 underwent IM CLND. With median follow-up of 21 months, 24-month relapse-free survival (RFS) was 67% (95% CI 62% to 73%) in the 326 patients. When the patient subgroups who would have been eligible for the two adjuvant anti-PD-1 clinical trials mandating IM CLND were analyzed separately, 24-month RFS rates were 64%, very similar to the RFS rates from those studies. Of these no-CLND patients, those with SLN tumor deposit >1 mm, stage IIIC/D and ulcerated primary had worse RFS. Of the patients who relapsed on adjuvant anti-PD-1, those without IM CLND had a higher rate of relapse in the regional nodal basin than those with IM CLND (46% vs 11%). Therefore, 55% of patients who relapsed without prior CLND underwent surgery including therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND), with 30% relapsing a second time; there was no difference in subsequent relapse between patients who received observation vs secondary adjuvant therapy. Despite the increased frequency of nodal relapses, adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy may be as effective in SLN+ pts who forego IM CLND and salvage surgery with TLND at relapse may be a viable option for these patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ZE: Advisory boards: Array, Pfizer, OncoSec, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, Natera. Research funding: Novartis, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim. JFT: Advisory boards: BMS Australia, MSD Australia, GSK, Provectus Inc. Travel support: GSK, Provectus Inc and Novartis. TJH: Research funding: Genentech, SkylineDX. EKB: Research funding: SkylineDx, Honorarium: Excite International inc. DEG: Honoraria: BMS, Novartis, Q biotics. GK; Advisory Board: Merck. AVA: Advisory Boards: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC Research funding: Amgen, Merck-Pfizer. JV: Speaker: Caste Biosciences. GB: Research funding: Istari Oncology, Delcath, Oncosec Medical, Replimune, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. ROB: Advisory boards: Amgen, BD/BARD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme. Research funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, SkyLineDx. Speaker honorarium: Roche and Pfizer. Shareholder in SATMEG Ventures AB. NIK: Advisory boards: Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Array, Immunocore, Merck, Incyte, Jounce Therapeutics,Pfizer,Novartis, Nektar,Castle Biosciences, Instil Bio. Research funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Celgene, Replimune, Amgen, Regneron, HUYA, GlaxoSmithKline Stocks: Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Amarin Corporation, Asensus Surgical., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Guidelines addressing melanoma in-transit metastasis (ITM) recommend immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as a first-line treatment option, despite the fact that there are no efficacy data available from prospective trials for exclusively ITM disease. The study aims to analyze the outcome of patients with ITM treated with ICI based on data from a large cohort of patients treated at international referral clinics., Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients treated between January 2015 and December 2020 from Australia, Europe, and the USA, evaluating treatment with ICI for ITM with or without nodal involvement (AJCC8 N1c, N2c, and N3c) and without distant disease (M0). Treatment was with PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) and/or CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab). The response was evaluated according to the RECIST criteria modified for cutaneous lesions., Results: A total of 287 patients from 21 institutions in eight countries were included. Immunotherapy was first-line treatment in 64 (22%) patients. PD-1 or CTLA-4 inhibitor monotherapy was given in 233 (81%) and 23 (8%) patients, respectively, while 31 (11%) received both in combination. The overall response rate was 56%, complete response (CR) rate was 36%, and progressive disease (PD) rate was 32%. Median PFS was ten months (95% CI 7.4-12.6 months) with a one-, two-, and five-year PFS rate of 48%, 33%, and 18%, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, and the one-, two-, and five-year MSS rates were 95%, 83%, and 71%, respectively., Conclusion: Systemic immunotherapy is an effective treatment for melanoma ITM. Future studies should evaluate the role of systemic immunotherapy in the context of multimodality therapy, including locoregional treatments such as surgery, intralesional therapy, and regional therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: R Olofsson Bagge: Advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Genzyme. Speaker honorarium from Roche and Pfizer. Institutional research grant from Astra Zeneca and SkylineDx. L Ny: Consultant/advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme and Zealth. Speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Leo Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Novartis, and Pfizer. Institutional research support from Merck Sharp & Dhome and Syndax Pharmaceuticals. T Hieken: Institutional research funding from Genentech and SkylineDx. M Block: Advisory Boards TILT Biotherapeutics, Viewpoint Molecular Targeting and Sorrento Therapeutics. Grant/Research support from: Genentech, Marker Therapeutics, Immune Design, Pharmacyclics, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Transgene, Viewpoint Molecular Targeting and Sorrento Therapeutics. F Dimitriou: Honoraria and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Sun Pharma. AM Menzies: Advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre and Qbiotics. RPM Saw: Honoraria for advisory board participation from Merck Sharp & Dhome, Novartis and Qbiotics, and speaking honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis. A Rogiers: Speaker fee from Merck Sharpe and Dohme. G Karakousis: Investigator intitated research trial institutional support from Merck. L Pallan: Speakers fees and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Conference attendance support from Eli-Lilly. JT Vetto: Speakers fee from CastleBiosciences. D Gyorki: Advisory board Amgen, Provectus and Bayer. Speaker fees Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dhome. PA Ascierto: Consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen and iTeos. Research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer and Sanofi. R Dummer: intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA and touchIME outside the submitted work. J Schachter: Advisory board Merck Sharp & Dhome. Speaker honoraria Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Novartis and Medison. N Asher: Advisory boards for Medison, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Speaker honoraria from Medison, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Novartis, and Sanofi. Institutional research grants from Medison and Novartis. H Helgadottir: Advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dhome and Novartis. Speaker honorarium from Bristol-Myers Squibb. MS Carlino: Advisory board member for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dhome, and Novartis. J Weber: Consult for Merck, Genentech, Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Nektar, Celldex, Incyte, Biond, ImCheck, Sellas, Evaxion and EMD Serono. Advisory board member Bristol-Myers Squibb. Equity in Biond, Evaxion, Instil Bio and Neximmune. Scientific advisory boards for CytoMx, Incyte, ImCheck, Biond, Sellas, Instil Bio OncoC4 and Neximmune. Institutional research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Moderna, Pfizer, Novartis and Astra Zeneca. Named on patents from Moffitt Cancer Center and Biodesix. D Ollila: Advisory boards and/or Consulting for Philogen, Merck, Novartis and Castle Biosciences. Medical Advisory Bopard - Delcath Systems. Speaker honorarium from Sun Pharma and Pfizer. Institutional research funding from Neracare, Castle Biosciences, Delcath Systems, Philogen and Provectus, GV Long: Consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexel AG, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX B.V. and Specialised Therapeutics Australia Pty Ltd. J Zager: Advisory boards and/or Consulting for Philogen, Merck, Novartis and Castle Biosciences. Medical Advisory Board Delcath Systems. Speaker honorarium from Sun Pharma and Pfizer. Institutional research funding from Neracare, Castle Biosciences, Delcath Systems, Philogen and Provectus. A van Akkooi: Advisory Board and Consultancy Honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Merck, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sirius Medical and 4SC. Research grants from Amgen, Merck and Pfizer. All unrelated to current work and paid to institute. The funding bodies had no part in the design of the study, the collection of data, in the analysis of data or in writing the manuscript., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)