Breast Cancer

Monica Saini, MD, a radiologist in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and JoAnn Pushkin, executive director of the nonprofit educational website DenseBreast-info.org, engaged ObGyn attendees on “Breast density: Why it matters and what to do” at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting (May 6–9, 2017) in San Diego, California. The program was sponsored by GE Healthcare.

DENSE BREASTS ARE A RISK FACTOR FOR CANCER

Breast density is the second largest risk factor for breast cancer after radiation treatment to the chest, so it is important to identify patients with dense breasts, according to Dr. Saini. The American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifies breast density into 4 groups: 1) almost entirely fatty, 2) scattered fibroglandular densities, 3) heterogeneously dense, and 4) extremely dense. A woman whose mammograms show heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts is considered to have “dense breasts.”

Cancer is often difficult to identify with mammography in dense breasts because masses or lumps appear as white on a white (dense tissue) background; by contrast, a tumor in a nondense (fatty) breast would appear as white on a dark, fatty tissue background. Approximately one-third of cancers in dense breasts have a delayed diagnosis on mammography, and 70% of cancers occur in dense breasts, said Dr. Saini.

Having dense breasts is not an abnormal condition, however, and is actually common—about 40% of women aged 40 or older have dense breasts.

Supplement mammography with other screening modalities

While screening mammograms can save lives, mammography should not be viewed as a one-size-fits-all modality. Screening for breast cancer should be personalized, based on, among other factors, a woman’s personal and family history, age, genetic risk, lifestyle factors, and breast density.

Key point. Women with dense breasts should continue to have screening mammograms. In addition, mammography for these patients should be supplemented with other technologies, such as 3D mammography (digital tomosynthesis), handheld ultrasound, or automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). In women at higher risk (presence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation, strong family history of breast cancer, or radiation treatment to the chest) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be considered.

Data on adjunct screening modalities. Dr. Saini discussed the results of the ASTOUND trial, a prospective multicenter study that compared ultrasound and tomosynthesis for the detection of breast cancer in mammography-negative dense breasts.¹ Among the 3,231 asymptomatic women included in the trial, 13 breast cancers were detected with tomosynthesis (incremental cancer detection rate [CDR], 4 per 1,000 screens; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8–6.2) and 23 were detected with ultrasound (incremental CDR, 7.1 per 1,000 screens; 95% CI, 4.4–10.0), P = .006. There were 107 false-positive results: 53 with tomosynthesis and 65 with ultrasound, a difference that was not statistically significant. The study authors noted that while ultrasound had better incremental breast cancer detection than tomosynthesis, and at a similar false-positive recall rate, tomosynthesis did detect more than half of the additional breast cancers in these women.¹

Make screening easier for the patient

Dr. Saini noted that for women with dense breasts, performing mammography and adjunctive screening at the same visit is convenient for the patient. Physicians can also write prescriptions for follow-up based on density findings, for example, “3D mammography if available, if dense, order ultrasound.”

Read how to answer patient questions about breast density

ARE YOU READY TO ANSWER PATIENT QUESTIONS ABOUT BREAST DENSITY?

That is the question JoAnn Pushkin, executive director of DenseBreast-info.org, asked in her presentation. You should discuss with patients exactly what it means to have dense breasts, breast density as an independent risk factor for cancer, the breast imaging technologies available for screening (mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound, contrast-enhanced MRI), the risks and benefits of each screening modality, and surveillance intervals for women with dense breasts. Good communication with the patient’s radiology team assists in formulating an individualized screening strategy.

Patients may have concerns about the information provided—or not provided—in their state’s breast density notification letter after a mammogram. Currently, 31 states mandate some type of breast density notification, while 4 states have efforts for density reporting or education that do not require notification. The information given to patients and how they will be informed varies by state. Some states, for example, require that patients who have heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts be informed of this by letter, while other states require that all patients receive the same notification with information about dense breasts but does not tell them whether or not they have dense breasts.

A go-to resource for ObGyns and patients

The website of the nonprofit DenseBreast-Info.org (http://densebreast-info.org/), co-founded by Wendie Berg, MD, PhD, who serves as Chief Scientific Advisor to the organization and is Professor of Radiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine/Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC, provides an interactive US map that features state-by-state breast density reporting guidelines so you can stay up-to-date on notification legislation in your area.

Sections for patients offer comprehensive and clearly written information on categories of breast density, a patient risk checklist, screening test descriptions, frequently asked questions, educational videos, and a patient brochure in English and Spanish.

For health care providers, resources include:

• a screening decision support tool flowchart to help assess which patients need more screening
• a table summarizing the cancer detection rates for mammography alone and mammography plus another screening modality (tomosynthesis, ultrasound, MRI)
• a comparison of breast cancer screening guidelines from various medical societies, including the American College of Radiology/Society of Breast Imaging, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the US Preventive Services Task Force.

A special section covers screening technology, and each page includes descriptions, benefits, and considerations for use. Photos of the equipment and images of breast scans with explanatory captions enhance understanding.

Screening for high-risk women

Ms. Pushkin noted that for high-risk patients with dense breasts, mammography plus MRI annually would be an appropriate option.

Monica Saini, MD, a radiologist in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and JoAnn Pushkin, executive director of the nonprofit educational website DenseBreast-info.org, engaged ObGyn attendees on “Breast density: Why it matters and what to do” at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting (May 6–9, 2017) in San Diego, California. The program was sponsored by GE Healthcare.

DENSE BREASTS ARE A RISK FACTOR FOR CANCER

Breast density is the second largest risk factor for breast cancer after radiation treatment to the chest, so it is important to identify patients with dense breasts, according to Dr. Saini. The American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifies breast density into 4 groups: 1) almost entirely fatty, 2) scattered fibroglandular densities, 3) heterogeneously dense, and 4) extremely dense. A woman whose mammograms show heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts is considered to have “dense breasts.”

Cancer is often difficult to identify with mammography in dense breasts because masses or lumps appear as white on a white (dense tissue) background; by contrast, a tumor in a nondense (fatty) breast would appear as white on a dark, fatty tissue background. Approximately one-third of cancers in dense breasts have a delayed diagnosis on mammography, and 70% of cancers occur in dense breasts, said Dr. Saini.

Having dense breasts is not an abnormal condition, however, and is actually common—about 40% of women aged 40 or older have dense breasts.

Supplement mammography with other screening modalities

While screening mammograms can save lives, mammography should not be viewed as a one-size-fits-all modality. Screening for breast cancer should be personalized, based on, among other factors, a woman’s personal and family history, age, genetic risk, lifestyle factors, and breast density.

Key point. Women with dense breasts should continue to have screening mammograms. In addition, mammography for these patients should be supplemented with other technologies, such as 3D mammography (digital tomosynthesis), handheld ultrasound, or automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). In women at higher risk (presence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation, strong family history of breast cancer, or radiation treatment to the chest) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be considered.

Data on adjunct screening modalities. Dr. Saini discussed the results of the ASTOUND trial, a prospective multicenter study that compared ultrasound and tomosynthesis for the detection of breast cancer in mammography-negative dense breasts.¹ Among the 3,231 asymptomatic women included in the trial, 13 breast cancers were detected with tomosynthesis (incremental cancer detection rate [CDR], 4 per 1,000 screens; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8–6.2) and 23 were detected with ultrasound (incremental CDR, 7.1 per 1,000 screens; 95% CI, 4.4–10.0), P = .006. There were 107 false-positive results: 53 with tomosynthesis and 65 with ultrasound, a difference that was not statistically significant. The study authors noted that while ultrasound had better incremental breast cancer detection than tomosynthesis, and at a similar false-positive recall rate, tomosynthesis did detect more than half of the additional breast cancers in these women.¹

Make screening easier for the patient

Dr. Saini noted that for women with dense breasts, performing mammography and adjunctive screening at the same visit is convenient for the patient. Physicians can also write prescriptions for follow-up based on density findings, for example, “3D mammography if available, if dense, order ultrasound.”

Read how to answer patient questions about breast density

ARE YOU READY TO ANSWER PATIENT QUESTIONS ABOUT BREAST DENSITY?

That is the question JoAnn Pushkin, executive director of DenseBreast-info.org, asked in her presentation. You should discuss with patients exactly what it means to have dense breasts, breast density as an independent risk factor for cancer, the breast imaging technologies available for screening (mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound, contrast-enhanced MRI), the risks and benefits of each screening modality, and surveillance intervals for women with dense breasts. Good communication with the patient’s radiology team assists in formulating an individualized screening strategy.

Patients may have concerns about the information provided—or not provided—in their state’s breast density notification letter after a mammogram. Currently, 31 states mandate some type of breast density notification, while 4 states have efforts for density reporting or education that do not require notification. The information given to patients and how they will be informed varies by state. Some states, for example, require that patients who have heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts be informed of this by letter, while other states require that all patients receive the same notification with information about dense breasts but does not tell them whether or not they have dense breasts.

A go-to resource for ObGyns and patients

The website of the nonprofit DenseBreast-Info.org (http://densebreast-info.org/), co-founded by Wendie Berg, MD, PhD, who serves as Chief Scientific Advisor to the organization and is Professor of Radiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine/Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC, provides an interactive US map that features state-by-state breast density reporting guidelines so you can stay up-to-date on notification legislation in your area.

Sections for patients offer comprehensive and clearly written information on categories of breast density, a patient risk checklist, screening test descriptions, frequently asked questions, educational videos, and a patient brochure in English and Spanish.

For health care providers, resources include:

• a screening decision support tool flowchart to help assess which patients need more screening
• a table summarizing the cancer detection rates for mammography alone and mammography plus another screening modality (tomosynthesis, ultrasound, MRI)
• a comparison of breast cancer screening guidelines from various medical societies, including the American College of Radiology/Society of Breast Imaging, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the US Preventive Services Task Force.

A special section covers screening technology, and each page includes descriptions, benefits, and considerations for use. Photos of the equipment and images of breast scans with explanatory captions enhance understanding.

Screening for high-risk women

Ms. Pushkin noted that for high-risk patients with dense breasts, mammography plus MRI annually would be an appropriate option.

Monica Saini, MD, a radiologist in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and JoAnn Pushkin, executive director of the nonprofit educational website DenseBreast-info.org, engaged ObGyn attendees on “Breast density: Why it matters and what to do” at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting (May 6–9, 2017) in San Diego, California. The program was sponsored by GE Healthcare.

DENSE BREASTS ARE A RISK FACTOR FOR CANCER

Breast density is the second largest risk factor for breast cancer after radiation treatment to the chest, so it is important to identify patients with dense breasts, according to Dr. Saini. The American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifies breast density into 4 groups: 1) almost entirely fatty, 2) scattered fibroglandular densities, 3) heterogeneously dense, and 4) extremely dense. A woman whose mammograms show heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts is considered to have “dense breasts.”

Cancer is often difficult to identify with mammography in dense breasts because masses or lumps appear as white on a white (dense tissue) background; by contrast, a tumor in a nondense (fatty) breast would appear as white on a dark, fatty tissue background. Approximately one-third of cancers in dense breasts have a delayed diagnosis on mammography, and 70% of cancers occur in dense breasts, said Dr. Saini.

Having dense breasts is not an abnormal condition, however, and is actually common—about 40% of women aged 40 or older have dense breasts.

Supplement mammography with other screening modalities

While screening mammograms can save lives, mammography should not be viewed as a one-size-fits-all modality. Screening for breast cancer should be personalized, based on, among other factors, a woman’s personal and family history, age, genetic risk, lifestyle factors, and breast density.

Key point. Women with dense breasts should continue to have screening mammograms. In addition, mammography for these patients should be supplemented with other technologies, such as 3D mammography (digital tomosynthesis), handheld ultrasound, or automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). In women at higher risk (presence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation, strong family history of breast cancer, or radiation treatment to the chest) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be considered.

Data on adjunct screening modalities. Dr. Saini discussed the results of the ASTOUND trial, a prospective multicenter study that compared ultrasound and tomosynthesis for the detection of breast cancer in mammography-negative dense breasts.¹ Among the 3,231 asymptomatic women included in the trial, 13 breast cancers were detected with tomosynthesis (incremental cancer detection rate [CDR], 4 per 1,000 screens; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8–6.2) and 23 were detected with ultrasound (incremental CDR, 7.1 per 1,000 screens; 95% CI, 4.4–10.0), P = .006. There were 107 false-positive results: 53 with tomosynthesis and 65 with ultrasound, a difference that was not statistically significant. The study authors noted that while ultrasound had better incremental breast cancer detection than tomosynthesis, and at a similar false-positive recall rate, tomosynthesis did detect more than half of the additional breast cancers in these women.¹

Make screening easier for the patient

Dr. Saini noted that for women with dense breasts, performing mammography and adjunctive screening at the same visit is convenient for the patient. Physicians can also write prescriptions for follow-up based on density findings, for example, “3D mammography if available, if dense, order ultrasound.”

Read how to answer patient questions about breast density

ARE YOU READY TO ANSWER PATIENT QUESTIONS ABOUT BREAST DENSITY?

That is the question JoAnn Pushkin, executive director of DenseBreast-info.org, asked in her presentation. You should discuss with patients exactly what it means to have dense breasts, breast density as an independent risk factor for cancer, the breast imaging technologies available for screening (mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound, contrast-enhanced MRI), the risks and benefits of each screening modality, and surveillance intervals for women with dense breasts. Good communication with the patient’s radiology team assists in formulating an individualized screening strategy.

Patients may have concerns about the information provided—or not provided—in their state’s breast density notification letter after a mammogram. Currently, 31 states mandate some type of breast density notification, while 4 states have efforts for density reporting or education that do not require notification. The information given to patients and how they will be informed varies by state. Some states, for example, require that patients who have heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts be informed of this by letter, while other states require that all patients receive the same notification with information about dense breasts but does not tell them whether or not they have dense breasts.

A go-to resource for ObGyns and patients

The website of the nonprofit DenseBreast-Info.org (http://densebreast-info.org/), co-founded by Wendie Berg, MD, PhD, who serves as Chief Scientific Advisor to the organization and is Professor of Radiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine/Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC, provides an interactive US map that features state-by-state breast density reporting guidelines so you can stay up-to-date on notification legislation in your area.

Sections for patients offer comprehensive and clearly written information on categories of breast density, a patient risk checklist, screening test descriptions, frequently asked questions, educational videos, and a patient brochure in English and Spanish.

For health care providers, resources include:

• a screening decision support tool flowchart to help assess which patients need more screening
• a table summarizing the cancer detection rates for mammography alone and mammography plus another screening modality (tomosynthesis, ultrasound, MRI)
• a comparison of breast cancer screening guidelines from various medical societies, including the American College of Radiology/Society of Breast Imaging, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the US Preventive Services Task Force.

A special section covers screening technology, and each page includes descriptions, benefits, and considerations for use. Photos of the equipment and images of breast scans with explanatory captions enhance understanding.

Screening for high-risk women

Ms. Pushkin noted that for high-risk patients with dense breasts, mammography plus MRI annually would be an appropriate option.

A new analysis of data from The Cancer Genome Atlas revealed 142 genes differentially expressed between white and African Americans that may influence breast cancer survival.

Researchers sifted through gene expression, protein expression, somatic mutations, somatic DNA copy number alteration, and DNA methylation patterns between 154 black patients of African ancestry (mean age at diagnosis, 55.66 years); and 776 white patients (mean age, 59.51) of European ancestry. They also looked at germline genetic variants for breast cancer subtypes and estimated subtype heritability.

African American patients were more likely than were whites to have basal-like breast cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46-5.87; P less than .001) and HER2-enriched breast cancer (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.10-4.47; P =.027).

After adjustment for subtype, 142 genes were differentially expressed between the two populations, a finding that held true after correction for testing of multiple comparisons (Bonferroni-adjusted P less than .05), reported Dezheng Huo, MD, PhD, of the department of public health sciences, University of Chicago, and his coauthors (JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0595).

During a median follow-up of 29 months, African Americans were more likely to experience recurrences (hazard ratio [HR], HR = 1.67, 95 CI, 1.02-2.74; P =.043). They had higher odds of basal-like breast cancer (OR, 3.80; 95% CI, 2.46-5.87; P less than .001) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ERBB2 (HER2)-enriched breast cancer (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.10-4.47; P =.027).

After adjusting for intrinsic subtypes, the researchers found differential expression of 16 DNA methylation probes, 4 DNA copy number segments, and 1 protein,

A new analysis of data from The Cancer Genome Atlas revealed 142 genes differentially expressed between white and African Americans that may influence breast cancer survival.

Researchers sifted through gene expression, protein expression, somatic mutations, somatic DNA copy number alteration, and DNA methylation patterns between 154 black patients of African ancestry (mean age at diagnosis, 55.66 years); and 776 white patients (mean age, 59.51) of European ancestry. They also looked at germline genetic variants for breast cancer subtypes and estimated subtype heritability.

African American patients were more likely than were whites to have basal-like breast cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46-5.87; P less than .001) and HER2-enriched breast cancer (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.10-4.47; P =.027).

After adjustment for subtype, 142 genes were differentially expressed between the two populations, a finding that held true after correction for testing of multiple comparisons (Bonferroni-adjusted P less than .05), reported Dezheng Huo, MD, PhD, of the department of public health sciences, University of Chicago, and his coauthors (JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0595).

During a median follow-up of 29 months, African Americans were more likely to experience recurrences (hazard ratio [HR], HR = 1.67, 95 CI, 1.02-2.74; P =.043). They had higher odds of basal-like breast cancer (OR, 3.80; 95% CI, 2.46-5.87; P less than .001) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ERBB2 (HER2)-enriched breast cancer (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.10-4.47; P =.027).

After adjusting for intrinsic subtypes, the researchers found differential expression of 16 DNA methylation probes, 4 DNA copy number segments, and 1 protein,

A new analysis of data from The Cancer Genome Atlas revealed 142 genes differentially expressed between white and African Americans that may influence breast cancer survival.

Researchers sifted through gene expression, protein expression, somatic mutations, somatic DNA copy number alteration, and DNA methylation patterns between 154 black patients of African ancestry (mean age at diagnosis, 55.66 years); and 776 white patients (mean age, 59.51) of European ancestry. They also looked at germline genetic variants for breast cancer subtypes and estimated subtype heritability.

African American patients were more likely than were whites to have basal-like breast cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46-5.87; P less than .001) and HER2-enriched breast cancer (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.10-4.47; P =.027).

After adjustment for subtype, 142 genes were differentially expressed between the two populations, a finding that held true after correction for testing of multiple comparisons (Bonferroni-adjusted P less than .05), reported Dezheng Huo, MD, PhD, of the department of public health sciences, University of Chicago, and his coauthors (JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0595).

During a median follow-up of 29 months, African Americans were more likely to experience recurrences (hazard ratio [HR], HR = 1.67, 95 CI, 1.02-2.74; P =.043). They had higher odds of basal-like breast cancer (OR, 3.80; 95% CI, 2.46-5.87; P less than .001) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ERBB2 (HER2)-enriched breast cancer (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.10-4.47; P =.027).

After adjusting for intrinsic subtypes, the researchers found differential expression of 16 DNA methylation probes, 4 DNA copy number segments, and 1 protein,

LAS VEGAS – Determination of whether excision of persistent breast cancer metastases can benefit the patient and even prolong survival depends on the location of the metastatic lesions, an investigator said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Before making the decision, it’s important to restage the patient’s disease and to recheck the receptor status if a biopsy is accessible, said Roshni Rao, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

Brain

Survival is worse when there are concurrent extracranial metastases or when brain metastases are greater than 5 cm, in patients with triple negative tumors, and in patients with a Karnofsky score of 70 or less, Dr. Rao said.

Surgery has the greatest benefit in patients with a single metastasis, with no extracranial disease, and who are able to undergo adjuvant whole brain radiation. In these cases, surgery improves survival, lowers recurrence rates, and reduces the risk of death neurological causes, she said.

Long-term survival is most common with continuous adjuvant therapy, either trastuzumab or hormonal, and in patients with a longer time interval to development of metastases. One series showed a 20-month survival increase.

Liver

Approximately 15% of patients with synchronous metastases will have liver metastases, and about half of stage IV patients will experience liver metastases at some point during treatment.

There is evidence from colorectal cancer that removing liver metastases is beneficial, and that has prompted interest in a similar approach in breast cancer. Liver resection has also become safer with new advances.

Dr. Rao discussed a single-institution study which took an aggressive approach to liver resection in 85 patients (Ann Surg. 2006;244:897-907). The researchers found that increased survival was associated with a good response to adjuvant chemotherapy, an r0 or r1 resection, and in patients who had a previous liver resection and were healthy enough to undergo another resection.

Overall, existing studies support liver resection if there are one to three lesions, if negative margins can be achieved, if the tumors are hormone receptor positive, and if the cancer is hormone positive and has good response to chemotherapy.

Dr. Rao emphasized that liver resections should be performed with a multidisciplinary team and should only be attempted at centers with low morbidity and where the doctors are experienced with liver resection.

When it’s possible, liver resection is beneficial. “There have been multiple reports of long-term survivors with no evidence of disease. There is likely a survival benefit with careful selection of these patients,” Dr. Rao said.

Lung

Lung surgeries are becoming safer, especially with the availability of video-assisted techniques, and pulmonary metastases are increasingly being spotted using more sensitive techniques such as higher resolution computed tomography.

A lung metastasis registry analysis showed three factors improved survival: prolonged disease-free survival, especially longer than 36 months; a complete resection; and a small number of metastases and success in resecting them all (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;22:335-44). A more recent meta-analysis showed the same results (J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:1441-51).

Bone

Bone metastases remain rare choices for surgical treatment. Most of the time, morbidity will be too high, and there are good options for systemic treatment. That leaves surgery reserved mostly for stabilization or the treatment of fractures.

However, there are a couple of exceptions, according to Dr. Rao. One multi-institutional randomized trial looked at metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Subjects either underwent decompressive surgery with stabilization and radiation or radiation alone. Patients in the surgical group had a longer ambulatory period and had a lower usage rate of steroids and opioids. Morbidity outcomes were similar in both groups. Patients whose primary tumor was in the breast seemed to benefit the most with respect to ambulatory time (Lancet. 2005;9486:643-8; J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8:271-8).

Sternal metastases represent another special case. 70% of the time, patients with sternal metastases have it as their only metastatic site. A French series of 33 patients who underwent aggressive chest wall and rib resection reported a 36% complication rate, while another study of 28 patients showed a 21% complication rate. Those complications are a problem, “but if you’re able to perform this in a resected tumor, there are long term survivors. As usual, triple negative breast cancers predicted a worse prognosis,” said Dr. Rao.

Dr. Rao concluded that resection of metastatic sites has a role. “I think it’s our responsibility as breast surgeons who are many times continuously following these patients to consider appropriate operations,” said Dr. Rao.

However, she did sound one note of caution. Surgery can interrupt therapy that is helping a patient. “Let’s say you have someone get a big liver resection, and then they have a tough time with recovery. There could be a long period of time they can’t get the therapy that was keeping them alive. That’s the real concern,” she said.

LAS VEGAS – Determination of whether excision of persistent breast cancer metastases can benefit the patient and even prolong survival depends on the location of the metastatic lesions, an investigator said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Before making the decision, it’s important to restage the patient’s disease and to recheck the receptor status if a biopsy is accessible, said Roshni Rao, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

Brain

Survival is worse when there are concurrent extracranial metastases or when brain metastases are greater than 5 cm, in patients with triple negative tumors, and in patients with a Karnofsky score of 70 or less, Dr. Rao said.

Surgery has the greatest benefit in patients with a single metastasis, with no extracranial disease, and who are able to undergo adjuvant whole brain radiation. In these cases, surgery improves survival, lowers recurrence rates, and reduces the risk of death neurological causes, she said.

Long-term survival is most common with continuous adjuvant therapy, either trastuzumab or hormonal, and in patients with a longer time interval to development of metastases. One series showed a 20-month survival increase.

Liver

Approximately 15% of patients with synchronous metastases will have liver metastases, and about half of stage IV patients will experience liver metastases at some point during treatment.

There is evidence from colorectal cancer that removing liver metastases is beneficial, and that has prompted interest in a similar approach in breast cancer. Liver resection has also become safer with new advances.

Dr. Rao discussed a single-institution study which took an aggressive approach to liver resection in 85 patients (Ann Surg. 2006;244:897-907). The researchers found that increased survival was associated with a good response to adjuvant chemotherapy, an r0 or r1 resection, and in patients who had a previous liver resection and were healthy enough to undergo another resection.

Overall, existing studies support liver resection if there are one to three lesions, if negative margins can be achieved, if the tumors are hormone receptor positive, and if the cancer is hormone positive and has good response to chemotherapy.

Dr. Rao emphasized that liver resections should be performed with a multidisciplinary team and should only be attempted at centers with low morbidity and where the doctors are experienced with liver resection.

When it’s possible, liver resection is beneficial. “There have been multiple reports of long-term survivors with no evidence of disease. There is likely a survival benefit with careful selection of these patients,” Dr. Rao said.

Lung

Lung surgeries are becoming safer, especially with the availability of video-assisted techniques, and pulmonary metastases are increasingly being spotted using more sensitive techniques such as higher resolution computed tomography.

A lung metastasis registry analysis showed three factors improved survival: prolonged disease-free survival, especially longer than 36 months; a complete resection; and a small number of metastases and success in resecting them all (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;22:335-44). A more recent meta-analysis showed the same results (J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:1441-51).

Bone

Bone metastases remain rare choices for surgical treatment. Most of the time, morbidity will be too high, and there are good options for systemic treatment. That leaves surgery reserved mostly for stabilization or the treatment of fractures.

However, there are a couple of exceptions, according to Dr. Rao. One multi-institutional randomized trial looked at metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Subjects either underwent decompressive surgery with stabilization and radiation or radiation alone. Patients in the surgical group had a longer ambulatory period and had a lower usage rate of steroids and opioids. Morbidity outcomes were similar in both groups. Patients whose primary tumor was in the breast seemed to benefit the most with respect to ambulatory time (Lancet. 2005;9486:643-8; J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8:271-8).

Sternal metastases represent another special case. 70% of the time, patients with sternal metastases have it as their only metastatic site. A French series of 33 patients who underwent aggressive chest wall and rib resection reported a 36% complication rate, while another study of 28 patients showed a 21% complication rate. Those complications are a problem, “but if you’re able to perform this in a resected tumor, there are long term survivors. As usual, triple negative breast cancers predicted a worse prognosis,” said Dr. Rao.

Dr. Rao concluded that resection of metastatic sites has a role. “I think it’s our responsibility as breast surgeons who are many times continuously following these patients to consider appropriate operations,” said Dr. Rao.

However, she did sound one note of caution. Surgery can interrupt therapy that is helping a patient. “Let’s say you have someone get a big liver resection, and then they have a tough time with recovery. There could be a long period of time they can’t get the therapy that was keeping them alive. That’s the real concern,” she said.

LAS VEGAS – Determination of whether excision of persistent breast cancer metastases can benefit the patient and even prolong survival depends on the location of the metastatic lesions, an investigator said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Before making the decision, it’s important to restage the patient’s disease and to recheck the receptor status if a biopsy is accessible, said Roshni Rao, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

Brain

Survival is worse when there are concurrent extracranial metastases or when brain metastases are greater than 5 cm, in patients with triple negative tumors, and in patients with a Karnofsky score of 70 or less, Dr. Rao said.

Surgery has the greatest benefit in patients with a single metastasis, with no extracranial disease, and who are able to undergo adjuvant whole brain radiation. In these cases, surgery improves survival, lowers recurrence rates, and reduces the risk of death neurological causes, she said.

Long-term survival is most common with continuous adjuvant therapy, either trastuzumab or hormonal, and in patients with a longer time interval to development of metastases. One series showed a 20-month survival increase.

Liver

Approximately 15% of patients with synchronous metastases will have liver metastases, and about half of stage IV patients will experience liver metastases at some point during treatment.

There is evidence from colorectal cancer that removing liver metastases is beneficial, and that has prompted interest in a similar approach in breast cancer. Liver resection has also become safer with new advances.

Dr. Rao discussed a single-institution study which took an aggressive approach to liver resection in 85 patients (Ann Surg. 2006;244:897-907). The researchers found that increased survival was associated with a good response to adjuvant chemotherapy, an r0 or r1 resection, and in patients who had a previous liver resection and were healthy enough to undergo another resection.

Overall, existing studies support liver resection if there are one to three lesions, if negative margins can be achieved, if the tumors are hormone receptor positive, and if the cancer is hormone positive and has good response to chemotherapy.

Dr. Rao emphasized that liver resections should be performed with a multidisciplinary team and should only be attempted at centers with low morbidity and where the doctors are experienced with liver resection.

When it’s possible, liver resection is beneficial. “There have been multiple reports of long-term survivors with no evidence of disease. There is likely a survival benefit with careful selection of these patients,” Dr. Rao said.

Lung

Lung surgeries are becoming safer, especially with the availability of video-assisted techniques, and pulmonary metastases are increasingly being spotted using more sensitive techniques such as higher resolution computed tomography.

A lung metastasis registry analysis showed three factors improved survival: prolonged disease-free survival, especially longer than 36 months; a complete resection; and a small number of metastases and success in resecting them all (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;22:335-44). A more recent meta-analysis showed the same results (J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:1441-51).

Bone

Bone metastases remain rare choices for surgical treatment. Most of the time, morbidity will be too high, and there are good options for systemic treatment. That leaves surgery reserved mostly for stabilization or the treatment of fractures.

However, there are a couple of exceptions, according to Dr. Rao. One multi-institutional randomized trial looked at metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Subjects either underwent decompressive surgery with stabilization and radiation or radiation alone. Patients in the surgical group had a longer ambulatory period and had a lower usage rate of steroids and opioids. Morbidity outcomes were similar in both groups. Patients whose primary tumor was in the breast seemed to benefit the most with respect to ambulatory time (Lancet. 2005;9486:643-8; J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8:271-8).

Sternal metastases represent another special case. 70% of the time, patients with sternal metastases have it as their only metastatic site. A French series of 33 patients who underwent aggressive chest wall and rib resection reported a 36% complication rate, while another study of 28 patients showed a 21% complication rate. Those complications are a problem, “but if you’re able to perform this in a resected tumor, there are long term survivors. As usual, triple negative breast cancers predicted a worse prognosis,” said Dr. Rao.

Dr. Rao concluded that resection of metastatic sites has a role. “I think it’s our responsibility as breast surgeons who are many times continuously following these patients to consider appropriate operations,” said Dr. Rao.

However, she did sound one note of caution. Surgery can interrupt therapy that is helping a patient. “Let’s say you have someone get a big liver resection, and then they have a tough time with recovery. There could be a long period of time they can’t get the therapy that was keeping them alive. That’s the real concern,” she said.

LAS VEGAS – Despite the early promise of antiandrogen therapy, it’s not time yet to routinely screen women with triple-negative breast cancer for androgen receptors, according to Tiffany A. Traina, MD, the head of research into the disease at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Despite the early promise of antiandrogen therapy, it’s not time yet to routinely screen women with triple-negative breast cancer for androgen receptors, according to Tiffany A. Traina, MD, the head of research into the disease at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Despite the early promise of antiandrogen therapy, it’s not time yet to routinely screen women with triple-negative breast cancer for androgen receptors, according to Tiffany A. Traina, MD, the head of research into the disease at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

[email protected]

BRUSSELS – A pair of breast cancer biomarkers look promising for making better prognosis assessments of selected patients, but acceptance of both into practice will need further documentation of their clinical utility, declared a senior breast cancer oncologist who served as discussant for the studies.

One of the markers is high intratumor heterogeneity of estrogen receptor density, a flag of poor prognosis when heterogeneity is high. The second marker is the phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription (pSTAT) 3, which appeared to link with good prognosis in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler

BRUSSELS – A pair of breast cancer biomarkers look promising for making better prognosis assessments of selected patients, but acceptance of both into practice will need further documentation of their clinical utility, declared a senior breast cancer oncologist who served as discussant for the studies.

One of the markers is high intratumor heterogeneity of estrogen receptor density, a flag of poor prognosis when heterogeneity is high. The second marker is the phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription (pSTAT) 3, which appeared to link with good prognosis in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler

BRUSSELS – A pair of breast cancer biomarkers look promising for making better prognosis assessments of selected patients, but acceptance of both into practice will need further documentation of their clinical utility, declared a senior breast cancer oncologist who served as discussant for the studies.

One of the markers is high intratumor heterogeneity of estrogen receptor density, a flag of poor prognosis when heterogeneity is high. The second marker is the phosphorylated signal transducer and activator of transcription (pSTAT) 3, which appeared to link with good prognosis in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler

BRUSSELS – The inability of researchers to find a biomarker that could flag a subgroup of breast cancer patients with increased responsiveness to ribociclib plus an aromatase inhibitor was “somewhat disappointing,” Philippe Bedard, MD, said at a breast cancer conference sponsored by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Many patients who are candidates for this combination treatment, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that is hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative, could also do just as well on an aromatase inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bedard, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Correction, 5/6/17: An earlier version of this article misstated the citation.

BRUSSELS – The inability of researchers to find a biomarker that could flag a subgroup of breast cancer patients with increased responsiveness to ribociclib plus an aromatase inhibitor was “somewhat disappointing,” Philippe Bedard, MD, said at a breast cancer conference sponsored by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Many patients who are candidates for this combination treatment, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that is hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative, could also do just as well on an aromatase inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bedard, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Correction, 5/6/17: An earlier version of this article misstated the citation.

BRUSSELS – The inability of researchers to find a biomarker that could flag a subgroup of breast cancer patients with increased responsiveness to ribociclib plus an aromatase inhibitor was “somewhat disappointing,” Philippe Bedard, MD, said at a breast cancer conference sponsored by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Many patients who are candidates for this combination treatment, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that is hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative, could also do just as well on an aromatase inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bedard, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Correction, 5/6/17: An earlier version of this article misstated the citation.

LAS VEGAS – In women with higher density (HD) breasts, preoperative MRI revealed more abnormalities than were seen in women with lower density (LD) breasts, but there was no difference in the number of secondary cancers detected or long-term recurrence rates.

Breast density is often cited by radiologists as a reason to conduct a preoperative MRI, but the study suggests that it should not be a driving factor. “It’s a real challenge when our radiologists provide us reports that say, ‘Due to increased density, we recommend MRI,’ because it’s really hard to then disregard that. I think this is very important data,” said Judy Boughey, MD, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, who moderated the session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons where the research was presented.

“MRI is a valuable tool, and we’re still trying to figure out who it should be performed in,” said lead author Sarah McLaughlin, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, in an interview.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 683 women at their institution who underwent preoperative MRI between 2007 and 2011. They grouped them by mammography results into LD (33%; Breast Imaging–Reporting and Data System density, 1 and 2) and HD (67%; BI-RADS density, 3 and 4).

Patients in the HD group more often had ipsilateral MRI findings (42% vs. 31%; P = .005), but ,of those with MRI findings, a similar number of patients in each group needed a second site biopsy (HD 65% vs. LD 67%; P = .78).

In all patients who had an additional MRI finding, the odds of detecting an additional ipsilateral cancer were not statistically significant between HD (32%) and LD (23%; P = .15) patients.

HD patients were also more likely to have abnormalities in the contralateral breast (25% vs. 14%; P = .009), but there were no statistically significant differences in rates of second-site biopsy recommendations or in the percentages of abnormalities that turned out to be cancerous (HD 6% vs. LD 3%; P = 1.0).

Following MRI, 70% of LD patients expressed a preference for breast-conserving surgery, compared with 53% of HD patients (P = .0001).

Over a median 7 years of follow-up, there was no difference in freedom from recurrence rates between the two groups (91% in LD vs. 90% in HD; P = .57).

“To me, it says that you don’t have to order an MRI just because they have cancer in a high density breast. You can feel reassured by your surgical plan and treatment recommendations based on conventional imaging,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The researchers can’t determine if having an MRI done increased patient worry and potentially led to the higher rate of mastectomies chosen by women in the HD group. “Is that a result of the MRI? I don’t think we can say that, but there’s this whole other discussion piece that goes into it. You definitely see patients who say, ‘But it found these other things, and I’m going to have a mastectomy.’ So, there’s that patient preference and worry piece,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The study results should offer some reassurance to patients. “There were no differences in local recurrence rates according to density. Maybe the next angle is allaying some of that fear, because the outcomes were the same. It’s really driven more by tumor biology and multimodality therapy,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The study doesn’t provide the final word on breast density and MRI, according to Dr. Boughey. “I think this is an area that needs to be studied more with a clinical trial. There are several going on in different countries, and this is an area where we need level 1 data. This study does fit with what many other studies have shown, which is that MRI probably doesn’t have as much benefit as patients believe it does, so our role really is to try to help educate patients.”

LAS VEGAS – In women with higher density (HD) breasts, preoperative MRI revealed more abnormalities than were seen in women with lower density (LD) breasts, but there was no difference in the number of secondary cancers detected or long-term recurrence rates.

Breast density is often cited by radiologists as a reason to conduct a preoperative MRI, but the study suggests that it should not be a driving factor. “It’s a real challenge when our radiologists provide us reports that say, ‘Due to increased density, we recommend MRI,’ because it’s really hard to then disregard that. I think this is very important data,” said Judy Boughey, MD, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, who moderated the session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons where the research was presented.

“MRI is a valuable tool, and we’re still trying to figure out who it should be performed in,” said lead author Sarah McLaughlin, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, in an interview.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 683 women at their institution who underwent preoperative MRI between 2007 and 2011. They grouped them by mammography results into LD (33%; Breast Imaging–Reporting and Data System density, 1 and 2) and HD (67%; BI-RADS density, 3 and 4).

Patients in the HD group more often had ipsilateral MRI findings (42% vs. 31%; P = .005), but ,of those with MRI findings, a similar number of patients in each group needed a second site biopsy (HD 65% vs. LD 67%; P = .78).

In all patients who had an additional MRI finding, the odds of detecting an additional ipsilateral cancer were not statistically significant between HD (32%) and LD (23%; P = .15) patients.

HD patients were also more likely to have abnormalities in the contralateral breast (25% vs. 14%; P = .009), but there were no statistically significant differences in rates of second-site biopsy recommendations or in the percentages of abnormalities that turned out to be cancerous (HD 6% vs. LD 3%; P = 1.0).

Following MRI, 70% of LD patients expressed a preference for breast-conserving surgery, compared with 53% of HD patients (P = .0001).

Over a median 7 years of follow-up, there was no difference in freedom from recurrence rates between the two groups (91% in LD vs. 90% in HD; P = .57).

“To me, it says that you don’t have to order an MRI just because they have cancer in a high density breast. You can feel reassured by your surgical plan and treatment recommendations based on conventional imaging,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The researchers can’t determine if having an MRI done increased patient worry and potentially led to the higher rate of mastectomies chosen by women in the HD group. “Is that a result of the MRI? I don’t think we can say that, but there’s this whole other discussion piece that goes into it. You definitely see patients who say, ‘But it found these other things, and I’m going to have a mastectomy.’ So, there’s that patient preference and worry piece,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The study results should offer some reassurance to patients. “There were no differences in local recurrence rates according to density. Maybe the next angle is allaying some of that fear, because the outcomes were the same. It’s really driven more by tumor biology and multimodality therapy,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The study doesn’t provide the final word on breast density and MRI, according to Dr. Boughey. “I think this is an area that needs to be studied more with a clinical trial. There are several going on in different countries, and this is an area where we need level 1 data. This study does fit with what many other studies have shown, which is that MRI probably doesn’t have as much benefit as patients believe it does, so our role really is to try to help educate patients.”

LAS VEGAS – In women with higher density (HD) breasts, preoperative MRI revealed more abnormalities than were seen in women with lower density (LD) breasts, but there was no difference in the number of secondary cancers detected or long-term recurrence rates.

Breast density is often cited by radiologists as a reason to conduct a preoperative MRI, but the study suggests that it should not be a driving factor. “It’s a real challenge when our radiologists provide us reports that say, ‘Due to increased density, we recommend MRI,’ because it’s really hard to then disregard that. I think this is very important data,” said Judy Boughey, MD, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, who moderated the session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons where the research was presented.

“MRI is a valuable tool, and we’re still trying to figure out who it should be performed in,” said lead author Sarah McLaughlin, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, in an interview.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 683 women at their institution who underwent preoperative MRI between 2007 and 2011. They grouped them by mammography results into LD (33%; Breast Imaging–Reporting and Data System density, 1 and 2) and HD (67%; BI-RADS density, 3 and 4).

Patients in the HD group more often had ipsilateral MRI findings (42% vs. 31%; P = .005), but ,of those with MRI findings, a similar number of patients in each group needed a second site biopsy (HD 65% vs. LD 67%; P = .78).

In all patients who had an additional MRI finding, the odds of detecting an additional ipsilateral cancer were not statistically significant between HD (32%) and LD (23%; P = .15) patients.

HD patients were also more likely to have abnormalities in the contralateral breast (25% vs. 14%; P = .009), but there were no statistically significant differences in rates of second-site biopsy recommendations or in the percentages of abnormalities that turned out to be cancerous (HD 6% vs. LD 3%; P = 1.0).

Following MRI, 70% of LD patients expressed a preference for breast-conserving surgery, compared with 53% of HD patients (P = .0001).

Over a median 7 years of follow-up, there was no difference in freedom from recurrence rates between the two groups (91% in LD vs. 90% in HD; P = .57).

“To me, it says that you don’t have to order an MRI just because they have cancer in a high density breast. You can feel reassured by your surgical plan and treatment recommendations based on conventional imaging,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The researchers can’t determine if having an MRI done increased patient worry and potentially led to the higher rate of mastectomies chosen by women in the HD group. “Is that a result of the MRI? I don’t think we can say that, but there’s this whole other discussion piece that goes into it. You definitely see patients who say, ‘But it found these other things, and I’m going to have a mastectomy.’ So, there’s that patient preference and worry piece,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The study results should offer some reassurance to patients. “There were no differences in local recurrence rates according to density. Maybe the next angle is allaying some of that fear, because the outcomes were the same. It’s really driven more by tumor biology and multimodality therapy,” said Dr. McLaughlin.

The study doesn’t provide the final word on breast density and MRI, according to Dr. Boughey. “I think this is an area that needs to be studied more with a clinical trial. There are several going on in different countries, and this is an area where we need level 1 data. This study does fit with what many other studies have shown, which is that MRI probably doesn’t have as much benefit as patients believe it does, so our role really is to try to help educate patients.”

LAS VEGAS – Overall survival was better when women with occult breast cancer had axillary lymph node dissection and radiation, instead of mastectomy, in a database review of 934 cases by the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, the largest review to date of how best to handle the problem.

Five- and 10-year overall survival was 90.8% and 84.8%, respectively, among the 342 women treated with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) plus adjuvant radiation, versus 80.0% and 69.8% among the 592 who had ALND and mastectomies, plus or minus radiation, according to an analysis of the National Cancer Database from 2004-2013. The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

ALND plus radiation was independently associated with overall survival on multivariate analysis (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81, P = .004), and was associated with fewer comorbidities, use of chemotherapy, number of positive nodes, and number of nodes examined, compared with mastectomy.

Women treated with ALND plus radiation “had significantly better overall survival than those treated with mastectomy, even after adjusting for other covariates. We believe the study supports overall use of this treatment approach in patients with occult breast cancer,” said lead investigator, Lindsay Hessler, MD, of University of Maryland, Baltimore.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Overall survival was better when women with occult breast cancer had axillary lymph node dissection and radiation, instead of mastectomy, in a database review of 934 cases by the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, the largest review to date of how best to handle the problem.

Five- and 10-year overall survival was 90.8% and 84.8%, respectively, among the 342 women treated with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) plus adjuvant radiation, versus 80.0% and 69.8% among the 592 who had ALND and mastectomies, plus or minus radiation, according to an analysis of the National Cancer Database from 2004-2013. The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

ALND plus radiation was independently associated with overall survival on multivariate analysis (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81, P = .004), and was associated with fewer comorbidities, use of chemotherapy, number of positive nodes, and number of nodes examined, compared with mastectomy.

Women treated with ALND plus radiation “had significantly better overall survival than those treated with mastectomy, even after adjusting for other covariates. We believe the study supports overall use of this treatment approach in patients with occult breast cancer,” said lead investigator, Lindsay Hessler, MD, of University of Maryland, Baltimore.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Overall survival was better when women with occult breast cancer had axillary lymph node dissection and radiation, instead of mastectomy, in a database review of 934 cases by the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, the largest review to date of how best to handle the problem.

Five- and 10-year overall survival was 90.8% and 84.8%, respectively, among the 342 women treated with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) plus adjuvant radiation, versus 80.0% and 69.8% among the 592 who had ALND and mastectomies, plus or minus radiation, according to an analysis of the National Cancer Database from 2004-2013. The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

ALND plus radiation was independently associated with overall survival on multivariate analysis (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81, P = .004), and was associated with fewer comorbidities, use of chemotherapy, number of positive nodes, and number of nodes examined, compared with mastectomy.

Women treated with ALND plus radiation “had significantly better overall survival than those treated with mastectomy, even after adjusting for other covariates. We believe the study supports overall use of this treatment approach in patients with occult breast cancer,” said lead investigator, Lindsay Hessler, MD, of University of Maryland, Baltimore.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Although mastectomy is the standard of care for tumor recurrence following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation, a second lumpectomy with partial breast irradiation is a sound alternative under certain circumstances, according to Manjeet Chadha, MD, professor of radiation oncology and director of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

It depends on whether the new lesion is a true recurrence, or simply another primary tumor. In the absence of a genetic footprint to compare the two, Dr. Chadha and her colleagues use several of what she called “soft criteria” to make the call and counsel women.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Although mastectomy is the standard of care for tumor recurrence following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation, a second lumpectomy with partial breast irradiation is a sound alternative under certain circumstances, according to Manjeet Chadha, MD, professor of radiation oncology and director of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

It depends on whether the new lesion is a true recurrence, or simply another primary tumor. In the absence of a genetic footprint to compare the two, Dr. Chadha and her colleagues use several of what she called “soft criteria” to make the call and counsel women.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Although mastectomy is the standard of care for tumor recurrence following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation, a second lumpectomy with partial breast irradiation is a sound alternative under certain circumstances, according to Manjeet Chadha, MD, professor of radiation oncology and director of the department of radiation oncology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

It depends on whether the new lesion is a true recurrence, or simply another primary tumor. In the absence of a genetic footprint to compare the two, Dr. Chadha and her colleagues use several of what she called “soft criteria” to make the call and counsel women.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – An automated, minimally invasive, stereotactic-guided lumpectomy performed well in an outpatient setting, with no sutures required, potentially decreasing patient morbidity, according to Pat Whitworth, MD.

Pain scores were low, and all high-risk lesions were successfully removed.

The new technology is part of the natural progression of cancer resection, said Dr. Whitworth, director of the Nashville (Tenn.) Breast Center, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

“We went from radical mastectomy, to modified radical mastectomy, to lumpectomy. This is just part of that progression where we match what we do to what the patient really needs,” he said.

Dr. Whitworth said he believes that radiologists will soon be using such technology to treat breast cancer, which puts the onus on breast cancer surgeons to adopt it themselves. “I think it’s important for breast surgeons to acquire the necessary skill and techniques to use the same tools and work collaboratively with radiologists, because this is coming,” he said.

To see if it were possible to achieve results similar to those with lumpectomy, Dr. Whitworth analyzed data from 279 women who had a small ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive carcinoma, or high-risk lesion removed using a 15- or 20-mm radiofrequency basket capture with imaging guidance (lumpectomy). Patients who received a cancer diagnosis underwent a second, 20-mm basket capture to obtain shaved margins.

The procedure was conducted under local anesthesia and sedation, and the incisions were closed using Steri-Strip skin closures. The average pain score was 1.55 out of 10 (range, 0-7).

Of 125 patients found to have DCIS (n = 52) and invasive lesions (n = 73), the first capture achieved clear margins in 69 cases, and the shaved margin capture achieved clean margins in another 33 cases.

The remaining 23 patients (18%) had a positive margin by histologic standards following lumpectomy and shaved margin. Of the 22 with reported results, 17 (77%) had no residual lesion following open surgery.

The results convinced Dr. Wentworth of the technique’s utility, particularly in patients who may have a heightened surgical risk, he said. “We think this can replace open lumpectomy in selected patients, with favorable margin clearance.”

The approach is fairly simple, but Dr. Wentworth recommended beginning with stereotactic-guided technology before attempting the ultrasound-guided version, which requires a little more skill. “The biggest challenge is learning that you have to use a lot more local anesthetic. When this technology first came out, people tried to use the same amount of local anesthetic that they used for standard vacuum-assisted core biopsy, and it’s very painful unless you put 30 or 40 cc of dilute anesthetic in there,” said Dr. Wentworth.

The study was funded by Medtronic, which markets the technology. Dr. Whitworth is a principal at Targeted Medical Education, which receives funding from Medtronic.

LAS VEGAS – An automated, minimally invasive, stereotactic-guided lumpectomy performed well in an outpatient setting, with no sutures required, potentially decreasing patient morbidity, according to Pat Whitworth, MD.

Pain scores were low, and all high-risk lesions were successfully removed.

The new technology is part of the natural progression of cancer resection, said Dr. Whitworth, director of the Nashville (Tenn.) Breast Center, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

“We went from radical mastectomy, to modified radical mastectomy, to lumpectomy. This is just part of that progression where we match what we do to what the patient really needs,” he said.

Dr. Whitworth said he believes that radiologists will soon be using such technology to treat breast cancer, which puts the onus on breast cancer surgeons to adopt it themselves. “I think it’s important for breast surgeons to acquire the necessary skill and techniques to use the same tools and work collaboratively with radiologists, because this is coming,” he said.

To see if it were possible to achieve results similar to those with lumpectomy, Dr. Whitworth analyzed data from 279 women who had a small ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive carcinoma, or high-risk lesion removed using a 15- or 20-mm radiofrequency basket capture with imaging guidance (lumpectomy). Patients who received a cancer diagnosis underwent a second, 20-mm basket capture to obtain shaved margins.

The procedure was conducted under local anesthesia and sedation, and the incisions were closed using Steri-Strip skin closures. The average pain score was 1.55 out of 10 (range, 0-7).

Of 125 patients found to have DCIS (n = 52) and invasive lesions (n = 73), the first capture achieved clear margins in 69 cases, and the shaved margin capture achieved clean margins in another 33 cases.

The remaining 23 patients (18%) had a positive margin by histologic standards following lumpectomy and shaved margin. Of the 22 with reported results, 17 (77%) had no residual lesion following open surgery.

The results convinced Dr. Wentworth of the technique’s utility, particularly in patients who may have a heightened surgical risk, he said. “We think this can replace open lumpectomy in selected patients, with favorable margin clearance.”

The approach is fairly simple, but Dr. Wentworth recommended beginning with stereotactic-guided technology before attempting the ultrasound-guided version, which requires a little more skill. “The biggest challenge is learning that you have to use a lot more local anesthetic. When this technology first came out, people tried to use the same amount of local anesthetic that they used for standard vacuum-assisted core biopsy, and it’s very painful unless you put 30 or 40 cc of dilute anesthetic in there,” said Dr. Wentworth.

The study was funded by Medtronic, which markets the technology. Dr. Whitworth is a principal at Targeted Medical Education, which receives funding from Medtronic.

LAS VEGAS – An automated, minimally invasive, stereotactic-guided lumpectomy performed well in an outpatient setting, with no sutures required, potentially decreasing patient morbidity, according to Pat Whitworth, MD.

Pain scores were low, and all high-risk lesions were successfully removed.

The new technology is part of the natural progression of cancer resection, said Dr. Whitworth, director of the Nashville (Tenn.) Breast Center, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

“We went from radical mastectomy, to modified radical mastectomy, to lumpectomy. This is just part of that progression where we match what we do to what the patient really needs,” he said.

Dr. Whitworth said he believes that radiologists will soon be using such technology to treat breast cancer, which puts the onus on breast cancer surgeons to adopt it themselves. “I think it’s important for breast surgeons to acquire the necessary skill and techniques to use the same tools and work collaboratively with radiologists, because this is coming,” he said.

To see if it were possible to achieve results similar to those with lumpectomy, Dr. Whitworth analyzed data from 279 women who had a small ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive carcinoma, or high-risk lesion removed using a 15- or 20-mm radiofrequency basket capture with imaging guidance (lumpectomy). Patients who received a cancer diagnosis underwent a second, 20-mm basket capture to obtain shaved margins.

The procedure was conducted under local anesthesia and sedation, and the incisions were closed using Steri-Strip skin closures. The average pain score was 1.55 out of 10 (range, 0-7).

Of 125 patients found to have DCIS (n = 52) and invasive lesions (n = 73), the first capture achieved clear margins in 69 cases, and the shaved margin capture achieved clean margins in another 33 cases.

The remaining 23 patients (18%) had a positive margin by histologic standards following lumpectomy and shaved margin. Of the 22 with reported results, 17 (77%) had no residual lesion following open surgery.

The results convinced Dr. Wentworth of the technique’s utility, particularly in patients who may have a heightened surgical risk, he said. “We think this can replace open lumpectomy in selected patients, with favorable margin clearance.”

The approach is fairly simple, but Dr. Wentworth recommended beginning with stereotactic-guided technology before attempting the ultrasound-guided version, which requires a little more skill. “The biggest challenge is learning that you have to use a lot more local anesthetic. When this technology first came out, people tried to use the same amount of local anesthetic that they used for standard vacuum-assisted core biopsy, and it’s very painful unless you put 30 or 40 cc of dilute anesthetic in there,” said Dr. Wentworth.

The study was funded by Medtronic, which markets the technology. Dr. Whitworth is a principal at Targeted Medical Education, which receives funding from Medtronic.