, , , ,

Update on Male Breast Cancer

21 October 2019

Especially during October, when everything seems to be painted pink, it’s easy to overlook the fact that breast cancer is a disease of women and men. Male breast cancer accounts for 0.6 – 1.0% of all breast cancer cases. In the US, approximately 2600 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer each year. The lifetime risk is about 1 in 1000, versus 1 in 8 for women. Male breast cancer accounts for approximately 500 deaths in the US per year. Risk factors include increasing age, family history including BRCA gene mutations, obesity, alcohol intake, prior chest wall radiation, and low androgen hormone levels.

Male breast cancer tends to be diagnosed in later stages compared with breast cancer in women, and previous studies have come to conflicting conclusions about whether the poorer outcomes are due to higher stage at diagnosis or other factors. A study recently published in JAMA Oncology* looked at mortality rates among men and women diagnosed with breast cancer. The researchers used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and compared men and women who were diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2004 – December 2014. Their data analysis included approximately 16,000 men and 1.8 million women. Some of the key findings:

  • Mean age at diagnosis was 63.3 for men and 59.9 for women
  • 3-year survival was 86.4% for men and 91.7% for women
  • 5-year survival was 77.6% for men and 86.4% for women
  • Overall survival was 45.8% for men and 60.4% for women

Men diagnosed with breast cancer were older, were more likely to be diagnosed at advanced stages, and were less likely to receive conventional therapy. However, differences in survival persisted even after controlling for clinical characteristics of the disease, age, race and ethnicity, and access to care. Limitations of this study are that cause of death could not be determined (so it is not clear if all of the deaths are related to breast cancer) and the NCDB does not contain information on recurrence, BRCA gene status, adherence to treatment recommendations, and other medical conditions. However, the researchers concluded that male sex remained a significant risk factor for poorer outcomes, which suggests that there are biological differences in male versus female breast cancer. 

Another study recently published in the journal Cancer* also used NCDB information to look at treatment trends for men treated for breast cancer from a similar time period. The authors evaluated approximately 10,000 cases and noted that:

  • 24% underwent breast conserving surgery (lumpectomy)
  • 70% of those undergoing lumpectomy received radiation
  • 44% of patients received chemotherapy
  • 62% of those with estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer received endocrine therapy
  • 35% of those with ER+ / lymph node negative breast cancer had Oncotype Dx testing on their tumor to help determine need for chemotherapy

These findings are consistent with a point made in the JAMA Oncology study noting that men were less likely to receive conventional therapy – for example only 62% with ER+ breast cancer received endocrine therapy and only 70% of those undergoing breast conserving surgery were treated with postoperative radiation therapy. Some of the same limitations apply to this study, in that reasons for differences in therapy could not be determined, and there was no information on disease recurrence.

A few other important points to make about male breast cancer:

  • Most male breast cancer presents as a lump, but as in women, most lumps are not cancerous. It is important that a proper evaluation (usually including a mammogram and ultrasound, and possibly biopsy) be performed for any change
  • As in women, male breast cancer may present with nipple discharge (especially blood), “puckering” or “pulling in” of the skin, or severe redness of the skin which can be mistaken for infection – the latter may indicate a more aggressive type of breast cancer known as inflammatory breast cancer
  • ALL men with breast cancer, and anyone with a family history of male breast cancer, should undergo genetic counseling and testing. As in women, most cases of male breast cancer are “sporadic” (not related to an inherited mutation), but men with breast cancer are more likely to carry deleterious BRCA (especially BRCA 2) mutations
  • Men who carry a deleterious BRCA mutation have an approximately 8% lifetime risk (to age 80) of developing breast cancer. So while that is considered “high risk” for men, they are still more likely to NOT develop breast cancer. We do not currently recommend prophylactic mastectomy in men who carry a deleterious BRCA mutation but who have not been diagnosed with breast cancer
  • Men who carry a deleterious BRCA mutation are also at higher risk for prostate cancer, melanoma, and pancreatic cancer

Men with breast cancer are usually treated using the same protocols that are used for women. Unfortunately there is limited data to support this. Male breast cancer is not common, so it is challenging to enroll large numbers of patients in clinical trials. However, men have historically been excluded from many breast cancer clinical trials, so how can we even make progress? The US FDA has recently issued draft guidelines encouraging the inclusion of male breast cancer patients in clinical trials – this is certainly a step in the right direction.

*If you are not able to access the full study and would like a copy, please email me: contact at drattai dot com

Additional Information:

/by
,

Going Flat after Mastectomy – Research Survey

15 October 2019

Mastectomy (breast removal) rates continue to increase in the US. While reconstructive surgery is commonly performed after mastectomy, some patients opt to “go flat” or have no reconstruction. Some patients who have had reconstruction need to or choose to have the reconstruction reversed.

The aim of this study is to survey the “Going Flat” patient communities to assess patient satisfaction with their decision and results. 

This survey is being conducted for research purposes. It is a UCLA research survey. 

Patients should meet one of the following criteria to participate:

  • Single or double mastectomy for any reason (including if lumpectomy was performed first) and decided not to have reconstruction (decided to “go flat”)
  • Single or double mastectomy for any reason (including if lumpectomy was performed first), initially had reconstruction but then had reconstruction reversed or removed for any reason

This survey is voluntary and is completely anonymous.  No identifying information, including internet protocol (IP) addresses, will be collected. There is no industry funding or sponsor for this survey. The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. We value your time and your opinions. The anonymous data will be securely stored by the principal investigator and may be used for future research studies.

To participate in the survey, please click this link or cut and paste it into your web browser: https://uclahs.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7UPj6wVtZev9UGx

For questions regarding this study, you may contact principal investigator Dr. Deanna Attai

  • By phone: (818) 333-2555
  • By email [email protected]
  • By mail: 191 S. Buena Vista #415 Burbank, CA 91505

UCLA Office of the Human Research Protection Program (OHRPP):
If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, or if you have concerns or suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than the researchers, you may contact the UCLA OHRPP 

  • By phone: (310) 206-2040
  • By email: [email protected]
  • Or by mail: Box 951406, Los Angeles, CA  90095-1406

/2 Comments/by
,

FDA Alert for Breast Cancer Medication

16 September 2019

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a safety announcement about a “rare but severe” lung inflammation that can result from the use of any of 3 breast cancer medications – palbocilcilb (Ibrance), ribociclib (Kisqali), and abemaciclib (Verzenio). These 3 medications are in a class of drugs called cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors. They are used in estrogen receptor positive (ER+), Her2/neu negative metastatic (Stage 4) breast cancer, and work by interfering with cell division. 

The FDA announcement states that “the overall benefit of CDK 4/6 inhibitors is still greater than the risks when used as prescribed.” Palbociclib has been FDA-approved since 2015, and ribociclib and abemaciclib hae been approved since 2017. In evaluating studies of all 3 of the CDK 4/6 inhibitors, the FDA alert noted that 1-3% of patients taking these medications developed severe lung inflammation, and less than 1% died due to the condition.

The FDA recommended that patients notify their physicians immediately if they develop difficulty or discomfort with breathing or shortness of breath while at rest or at low activity when taking any of these medications. The FDA alert notes that there no specific risk factors that have been identified to determine how likely an individual patient is to develop severe lung inflammation while taking one of the CDK 4/6 inhibitors. They recommended that physicians routinely monitor their patients for lung symptoms that could indicate the development of severe inflammation. They also recommended that any side effects be reported to the FDA MedWatch Program. The alert noted that common side effects include “nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, infections, low red blood cell counts, low white blood cell counts, low platelet count, headache, dizziness, hair thinning or loss, rash, tiredness, and weakness”. I will post an update as more information becomes available.

Additional Information:

/by
, ,

Including Men in Breast Cancer Studies

3 September 2019

Last week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidelines for industry, which encourage the inclusion of male breast cancer patients in clinical trials that evaluate breast cancer therapies. The guidelines note that “eligibility criteria for clinical trials of breast cancer drugs should allow for inclusion of both males and females” and that “scientific rationale should be included in the protocol when proposing to exclude males from breast cancer trials.” There is a 60-day open comment period on the guideline.

In the US, approximately 2600 men are diagnosed with breast cancer each year, approximately 1% of all new breast cancer cases. Men tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages compared with women, and there are about 500 male breast cancer related deaths in the US annually. Breast cancer in men is usually treated in a similar manner as in women. However, because men are typically not included in breast cancer clinical trials, it is not known if this is an optimal approach. One of the primary reasons that men are excluded from breast cancer clinical trials is that the disease is uncommon – setting up a vicious cycle where little progress is made. The statement noted that “FDA does not intend to consider low expected accrual rates of male patients with breast cancer to be a sufficient scientific rationale for excluding them from a clinical trial.”

This is most certainly a welcome step towards improving the understanding and treatment of male breast cancer.

/by

Breast Implant Recall

24 July 2019

This morning, the US FDA announced that it was recommending that specific models of breast implants manufactured by Allergan be removed from the market due to concerns about breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), a form of cancer. Allergan responded by announcing a worldwide recall of BIOCELL textured breast implants.

The FDA announcement notes that 573 cases of BIA-ALCL have been diagnosed worldwide, and the majority of the cases (481) have been linked to Allergan implants. While BIA-ALCL is thought to be curable by removing the implant and capsule, the FDA announcement reports that 33 patients have died. In 13 of the cases (of patient death) where the implant manufacturer was known, 12 patients had Allergan implants. The FDA announcement was prompted by information received since March 2019, when the FDA issued a letter to healthcare providers and held a public meeting to increase awareness of BIA-ALCL and to request that suspected cases be reported.

The plastic surgeon’s office typically keeps a record of the type of implant placed. Today’s FDA announcement stated that the majority of implants placed in the US are NOT the textured form, and that the specific type of Allergan implant implicated accounts for about 5% of all implants placed in the US. BIA-ALCL is not common, and typically presents with rapid accumulation of fluid (that a patient would notice as swelling) sometime after placement. As always, report any changes to your physician.

Update after 7/25/19 FDA call: I had the opportunity to sit in on a call with the FDA and several other surgical societies this morning and a few points were made:

  • The implants implicated in the recall were not marketed in the US prior to March 2000.
  • A small percentage of cases of BIA-ALCL have occurred in patients who have no history of textured implants.
  • Tissue expanders, the temporary “spacers” that are often used prior to stretch the skin and muscle, are often textured. They are not usually left in place for more than a few months, but the FDA did not have any information or insights as to whether these might be the cause of BIA-ALCL in patients with no history of textured implants.
  • The FDA is not recommending removal of implants in asymptomatic patients. They stressed that if implants are removed, the implant capsule (the fibrous scar tissue that normally forms after implant placement) also needs to be removed, because that is where the ALCL develops.
  • It was discussed that there is no “early detection” for BIA-ALCL, and that patients may not be comfortable with a “watch and wait” approach.
  • Concerns were raised about insurance coverage for implant removal and replacement, especially in patients who are asymptomatic. The FDA commented that insurance coverage issues are out of their scope of practice but they recognize the problem. They did note that they had met with patient advocate groups earlier today
  • All of the representatives from the surgical organizations that were on the call agreed that education of their members as well as the larger physician community is necessary. A representative from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons noted that they have been educating their members for some time and have patient resources on their website. They also stressed that if patients note any changes, they should seek out a board-certified plastic surgeon
  • Symptoms of BIA-ALCL include the sudden development of swelling (due to fluid accumulation) with or without a mass. Any changes should be promptly reported.
/by
,

Tumor Heterogeneity and Prognosis

5 July 2019

We tend to think of most cancers as a single cell line, or clone – one normal cell develops a mutation, and that abnormal cell continues to divide. However, many tumors exhibit what is termed “heterogeneity” – meaning they are composed of cells with different genetic makeups. These cells can have different behaviors, growth patterns and response to treatment.

A study recently published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology looked at the association between tumor heterogeneity and immune cells. They found that tumors with high heterogeneity (more diverse cell population) were associated with worse overall survival. They also found that these tumors were associated with lower levels of anti-tumor T-cells (an immune system cell) and “immune checkpoint molecules”, and had a higher percentage of immunosuppressive T-cells. Their finding was noted primarily in estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers.

Testing for different cell populations within a tumor is not routinely performed at this point in time. In addition, the authors noted that it is up for debate (and further research) which comes first – do the diverse tumor cell populations attract immune cells, or do the immune cells act to control tumor cell diversity. They noted that additional work is needed to better understand the changes that influence tumor cell heterogeneity and to develop methods to prevent it from occurring. This is just one of the reasons why a “cure” for cancer is not that simple. Cancer – even a single tumor in one patient – is not just one disease.

/by
, ,

Breast Conserving Therapy for Male Breast Cancer

30 June 2019

Note – if you would like a copy of the studies discussed below but are not able to access them from the journal website, please email me: contact at drattai dot com

In a study recently published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology, Bateni et al used the National Cancer Database to assess outcomes in patients with male breast cancer based on surgical therapy. The authors found improved 10-year survival in patients who underwent breast conserving therapy (BCT) which they defined as partial mastectomy (also called lumpectomy) plus radiation therapy.

Male breast cancer makes up about 1% of all new breast cancer diagnoses; approximately 2500 men are diagnosed in the US each year. Treatment guidelines for male breast cancer are similar to those for post-menopausal women despite growing evidence that breast cancer in men is a biologically different disease versus that in women. One of the challenges for clinical trials is the relatively small numbers of male breast cancer patients diagnosed each year. However, many clinical trials have not included men. 

A total of 8445 patients with stage I and II breast cancer, treated between 2004-2014, were included for analysis. 61% underwent mastectomy, and 18% underwent BCT. 12% had mastectomy with radiation, and 8% had partial mastectomy without radiation. Median follow up was 52 months. At 10 years, overall survival was as follows:

  • 74% BCT
  • 58% mastectomy
  • 56% mastectomy with radiation
  • 56% partial mastectomy without radiation

The image below is Figure IA from the manuscript, which show the “crude” overall survival for male breast cancer patients depending on surgical therapy.

Evaluating patients who had breast conservation with or without radiation, the authors noted that patients who were older, had higher tumor stage, higher cellular grade, and triple negative histology had poorer overall survival rates. They noted that there were differences in patient age, co-morbidities (other medical conditions), margin status and chemotherapy use for patients who underwent BCT versus partial mastectomy alone. However, after accounting for these differences, survival rates still favored BCT, suggesting that radiation therapy is an important component of improved outcomes. 

Limitations of the study noted by the authors include the retrospective nature, and the inability to understand some of the factors that influenced the decision for mastectomy versus breast conservation. Her2/neu status was not uniformly reported in the NCDB until 2010, so almost half of the patients in this study did not have this information. They also noted a larger percentage (4.9 vs 1.4%) of patients in the BCT group had triple negative breast cancer, which might explain why more of these patients were also treated with chemotherapy. It is also not clear how much of an influence the use of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy had in terms of the survival rates that were noted.

In a separate article, De La Cruz et al performed a systematic literature review of the studies evaluating breast conservation in men (excluding the Bateni et al study discussed above). The authors found 8 publications meeting their criteria. Among these studies, there were 859 patients who underwent breast conservation, 14.7% of all male breast cancer surgeries in the combined papers. Reporting on the “weighted average”, local recurrence (cancer returning in the breast) was 9.9%, disease-free survival was 85.6% and 5 year survival was 84.4%. As with the retrospective database analysis, there are limitations to this type of literature review – studies may use the same data points for inclusion, including use of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and margin status. There may be significant differences in the patient populations in the various studies reviewed. As in the Bateni et al paper, there may be multiple unknown factors that influenced a decision for surgery type.

Men tend to present with larger tumors, especially relative to breast size, so often mastectomy is recommended. However, the authors of both papers were of the opinion that breast conservation is oncologically safe and a very reasonable option for men with early stage breast cancer, if they desire. Bateni et al stressed the importance of radiation therapy if breast conservation is utilized. Both papers highlight the importance of clinical trials for male breast cancer, so that treatment recommendations can be based on the best available evidence.

Additional information on Male Breast Cancer:

/by
,

A New Option to Treat Metastatic Breast Cancer

4 June 2019

Encouraging news for patients with metastatic estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), Her2/neu negative breast cancer was presented at the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The MONALEESA-7 Phase III trial evaluated the use of ribociclib in combination with endocrine therapy. Patients who received ribociclib and endocrine therapy were found to have improved overall survival rates compared to those who received endocrine therapy alone. Prior studies demonstrated improved progression free survival, but this was the first demonstration of an improvement in overall survival. Patients enrolled in this study were pre- or peri-menopausal.

Ribociclib is an oral medication belonging to the CDK 4/6 inhibitor class of targeted agents. The CDK 4/6 pathway is important for cell division. CDK 4/6 inhibitors block progression through the normal cell cycle, so cancer cells are “arrested” in a resting phase and cannot divide. This study found that at 42 months, patients treated with ribociclib had a 70% overall survival rate, compared to 46% for the patients who received endocrine therapy alone. In absolute numbers, there were 26 fewer deaths (83 or 337 versus 109 of 335) in the treatment group. Because patients who develop metastatic breast cancer after a diagnosis of early-stage disease are not re-staged, it is not possible to determine with certainty how many patients this medication may be appropriate for. Approximately 40,000 women and 500 men die from metastatic breast cancer every year. ER+ is the most common breast cancer subtype.

Prior studies have evaluated a similar drug, palbociclib, which has been approved for use in women and men with metastatic breast cancer. There are ongoing studies evaluating all 3 of the “ciclib” agents to get a better sense of whether the results will be similar across all patient populations or if a particular drug will be better for a particular subset of patients. All 3 agents are oral (pills). While side effects may be an issue for some patients, these medications are much better tolerated compared to traditional chemotherapy. Unfortunately, cost and insurance coverage may be an issue in some situations.

In addition, I do think that it is important to point out that in the current study, the majority of patients (67% in the ribociclib arm and 73% in the endocrine therapy alone arm) went on to receive other therapy – meaning that the disease progressed. We are still a long way from a “cure” despite improvements in overall survival, and we’re a long way from single-agent therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Patients with metastatic breast cancer are still expected to need more than one, and in some cases multiple, agents over time as the cancer finds ways to mutate and continue to grow. The findings of this study are a step in the right direction, but much more research is needed.

Additional Information:
ASCO Post – 2019 ASCO: MONALEESA 7
NBC News – Breast Cancer Treatment Shows Hope for Younger Women

/by
, , , , ,

Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer – Research Survey

13 May 2019

Note – the survey closed on July 7th 2019. Thank you to all who participated and shared, and we will be sure to post the results when they are available!

Approximately 25-30% of patients with breast cancer who are prescribed endocrine therapy do not complete the full course of treatment, and some patients never start. Side effects of endocrine therapy are well documented but there is very little literature on the role of the medical team in helping patients manage treatment-related side effects. 

This survey is being conducted for research purposes. It is a UCLA research survey, open to women and men with a history of breast cancer who have been treated with or who have received a recommendation for endocrine therapy. 

This survey is voluntary and is completely anonymous – no identifying information, including internet protocol (IP) addresses, will be collected. The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. We value your time and your opinions. 

For questions regarding this study, you may contact principal investigator Dr. Deanna Attai By phone: (818) 333-2555; by email: [email protected]; or by mail: 191 S. Buena Vista #415, Burbank, CA 91505

UCLA Office of the Human Research Protection Program (OHRPP):
If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, or if you have concerns or suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than the researchers, you may contact the UCLA OHRPP  By phone: (310) 206-2040; by email: [email protected]; or by mail: Box 951406, Los Angeles, CA  90095-1406

Research Survey Link

/1 Comment/by
, , , , , , , ,

Updates from #ASBrS19

6 March 2019

The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) held their annual meeting in Dallas last week. This meeting usually draws about 1500 breast surgeons (just under half the ASBrS membership) from around the world, for several days of pre-meeting courses, didactic sessions, and research presentations. In addition to the science, the meeting provides opportunities for breast surgeons in all types of practice settings and at all levels of training and practice to network and learn from each other. 

The following covers some highlights from the general session. 

The meeting started off with the Critical Issues in Breast Cancer Forum: Changing Paradigms for Breast Cancer Surgery. Dr. Cary Kaufman presented an update on current clinical trials for cryoablation for breast cancer. Cryoablation is a technique that freezes the tumor, using a small probe placed into the tumor (similar to a needle biopsy) under local anesthesia. There are several types of ablative therapy including laser, radiofrequency, high-frequency ultrasound, and cryoablation. Because cold is a natural anesthetic agent, patients undergoing cryoablation do not need any sedation, and the procedure is performed while they are awake. 

Cryoablation was initially tried with benign tumors (fibroadenomas). In many cases, the fibroadenoma reabsorbed, leaving no mass and only a tiny (3 millimeter) scar. Multiple studies have looked at the use of cryoablation for breast cancer, and most have restricted therapy to patients with small (1.5 cm or smaller) estrogen receptor positive, Her2/neu negative tumors. I participated in a national multi-center trial, the ACOSOG / ALLIANCE Z1072 trial, which was published in 2016 and demonstrated that cryoablation was successful in the majority of these patients. All patients in the ACOSOG / ALLIANCE Z1072 study underwent surgery within one month of the ablation, so that the tumor site could be removed and evaluated. Several subsequent studies have looked at cryoablation for breast cancer without surgery. The longest follow up was from Dr. Fukuma in Japan. After 12 years of follow up, he reported 3 local (in-breast) recurrences in 304 patients. Combining 3 published trials, Dr. Kaufman noted that local recurrence rates range from 0.98 – 1.4%, and he concluded that this is extremely promising technology. He also noted that cryoablation of breast cancer appears to have an immunologic benefit – when the tumor cell membranes are disrupted by the extreme cold, the patient is exposed to tumor antigens, which may prompt antibody formation. It is very premature to determine if this immunologic effect will help reduce recurrence rates.

Dr. William Small presented updates on 3 clinical trials of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT). An advantage of IORT is that it is delivered at the time of lumpectomy, in the operating room, as a one-time treatment. A disadvantage is that status of the lumpectomy specimen margin and lymph nodes are not known at that time. If it is found on final pathology that there are positive margins, external beam radiation is recommended, and at least one trial noted that approximately 30% of patients who received IORT required additional whole breast radiation. Most studies of IORT have been limited to “low risk” lesions – small, low grade invasive cancers in older women. He discussed that a criticism of these studies is that some of these women may not have needed radiation therapy at all. Dr. Small noted that local recurrence rates are slightly higher (3.3 versus 1.3%) but that statistically, IORT is considered “non-inferior” to whole breast irradiation. He noted that seroma (fluid accumulation) is more common in patients who undergo IORT.  He concluded by stating that there is an “acceptable” toxicity, with non-inferior local recurrence. However, as there is relatively short follow up available in low risk patients, he questioned the applicability of this procedure to a broader patient population. A US registry is planned.

Dr. Antonio Toesca presented the results of his study of 100 patients who underwent robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) and implant reconstruction, and showed a fascinating video which highlighted the precise and meticulous dissection, along with improved visualization, compared to a standard surgical procedure. The average incision size was a little over 1 inch, and the specimen was removed intact (in one piece). The procedure averaged 1 hour and 18 minutes longer than their standard for a nipple sparing mastectomy and implant reconstruction (3 hours, 36 minutes for the robotic procedure. Patients who underwent the robotic procedure were less likely to have axillary web syndrome and reported Improved physical, psychological and sexual well-being. 

Why could performance of NSM using robotic technology become important? Dr. Tina Hieken presented the results of her study (abstract 580759, page 31) showing that as experience with the procedure has grown, indications are expanding and patients who previously were not candidates for the procedure are now being considered. A NSM is a technically challenging procedure, and it takes a toll on the neck and back of a surgeon. A 2017 study published in JAMA Surgery noted a high incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionists. Dr. Katherine Kopkash presented her research (abstract 51837, page 52) using intraoperative electromyography (EMG) on the surgeon to assess muscle strain during NSM. Of course, oncologic safety is the primary concern, and more study on the long-term outcomes (as well as costs) of robotic procedures is required. 

The next session was Emerging Strategies in Breast Cancer Care, which focused on “de-escalation” of surgical therapy. Dr. Anna Weiss provided an update of clinical trials evaluating active surveillance for low-risk ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS): COMET, LORD and LORIS. Approximately 60,000 cases of DCIS are diagnosed annually. Patients undergoing active surveillance do not have surgery, some are treated with endocrine therapy, and all undergo regular monitoring. This is a accepted option in select cases of prostate cancer, and Dr. Weiss noted that there is no difference in overall survival in patients with low-grade DCIS who do not undergo treatment. The LORD and LORIS trials are open in the UK and the COMET study is open in the US. (Additional perspective)

Dr. Henry Kuerer presented his research on the percutaneous management of breast cancer in the setting of a pathology complete response (pCR) following neoaduvant (before surgery) chemotherapy. He noted that for survival and recurrence matter most, but side effects and complications are significant concerns for both patients and physicians. I’ve recently covered details of his research on this blog. 

Some of the twitter conversation related to this talk included patients who noted that they would rather undergo surgery than chemotherapy. It is important to note that the patients involved in this study are those who were going to be treated with chemotherapy regardless of surgical therapy because they have triple negative or Her2/neu positive breast cancer. In these patients, systemic (whole-body) therapy is necessary due to the higher likelihood of metastatic disease. Surgical therapy in these patients, especially the “exceptional responders”, may not improve outcomes, but of course more study is needed. Surgery remains the standard of care for breast cancer therapy.

Dr. Judy Boughey discussed several cooperative group trials evaluating management of the axillary (underarm) lymph nodes, and these studies are also focusing on how we can safely de-escalate axillary surgical therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This is an area that is rapidly evolving with expansion of the criteria for a less aggressive approach to the axilla.

In a session on Evidence-Based Prevention and Management of Surgical Complications, Dr. Suzanne Klimberg presented on chronic post-mastectomy seroma. A seroma is a fluid collection – fluid normally accumulates after mastectomy which is why drainage tubes are left in place. Normally, drains can be removed after 7-14 days, but about 30% of patients will develop prolonged drainage. This is a frustrating problem for patients and physicians as the persistent fluid can be uncomfortable, may increase the risk of infection, and may delay the start of planned chemotherapy or radiation. She noted that a surgical technique to close the tissue known as “quilting” can reduce the rate of chronic seroma, but that it results in excessive skin dimpling and has a significant impact on the cosmetic results. She stated that additional drainage tubes, various “sealant” agents and compression (such as wearing an ace wrap) are not effective. The area may be sclerosed (scarred) by instilling talc or antibiotics, and in some cases, re-operation to remove the inflamed tissue is indicated. Otherwise she recommended patience and repeat aspirations. She noted that there are no ways to successfully prevent seromas from forming.

Dr. Amal Khoury presented on chronic post-mastectomy pain, and noted that persistent pain occurs in 25-60% of patients undergoing any type of breast surgery. It is thought that this chronic and at times severe pain is due to damage to and neuroma formation of the cutaneous (skin) branches of nerves that run along the 4thand 5thribs, which are roughly at the inframammary fold (bra line below the breast). These cutaneous nerve branches are often not visible at the time of surgery. She noted that the pain syndrome it is often not recognized, and when recognized it is often not treated effectively. She stated that injections with a combination of long-acting local anesthetic and steroid (in a very small dose) at the trigger points is more effective than taking pain or other medications, and in their study at UCSF, 91% of patients required only one injection for lasting relief.

The next session was Practical Considerations for Systemic Treatment. Dr. Judy Boughey reviewed the I-SPY2 clinical trials, which utilize an innovative “adaptive randomization” approach in patients who are undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative, Her2/neu positive, or other high risk breast cancers. pCR rates are assessed, and drugs that are successful move up higher in the randomization algorithm. This study and its flexible randomization protocol have accelerated the use of some novel agents. Patient reported outcomes assessing quality of life, fear of recurrence, symptoms and side effects are being assessed. If drug response rates are similar, the “winner” may be the one associated with fewer side effects. Dr. Barry Rosen discussed specific strategies to identify the previously involved axillary lymph nodes when chemotherapy is performed prior to surgery. Dr. Elizabeth Mittendorf presented on breast cancer immunotherapy and surgical implications of these treatments. She noted that one agent, atezolizumab, is currently approved for use in patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer. She noted that there are concerns about wound healing complications with these agents but unfortunately the clinical trials did not specifically assess for this. In addition, she noted that some immunotherapy agents are associated with development of adrenal insufficiency – this complication has only been reported in a small percentage of patients, but it is an important consideration in any patient who is going to have surgery.

A session was held on breast imaging. Dr. Molly Sebastian presented on the impact of breast density on breast cancer risk, noting that it is more difficult to screen patients with dense breasts, and that these patients are also at increased risk for developing breast cancer. The associated breast cancer risk increases with the level of density. Approximately 50% of women in US are considered to have dense breast by mammogram, and she cited a 2010 study that found that 30% of breast cancers could be linked to highly dense breast tissue. Contributors to increased density include younger age, use of hormone replacement therapy, race (Asian), diet (Western), alcohol use, and hereditary factors. She did stress that the presence of a germline genetic mutation (such as BRCA 1/2) conveys a much higher level of risk (regardless of density) than breast density itself. 

Dr. Brigid Killelea discussed balancing high-risk screening (which usually includes MRI) with the concerns about gadolinium toxicity. Gadolinium is a “rare earth heavy metal”, and is used in the contrast material that is administered (using an intravenous line) when breast MRI is performed. Acute allergic reactions are uncommon but as gadolinium is excreted through the kidneys, there are concerns about the potential for kidney damage especially in patients with pre-existing renal insufficiency. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) is an unusual condition that results in progressive deposition of gadolinium in the skin. It has also been found that the number of exposures to the linear form of gadolinium (as opposed to macrocyclic, which is what is most commonly used with breast MRI) correlates with increasing deposits in the brain. More research is needed to determine if this leads to an increased risk of Parkinson’s or other diseases. Studies evaluating “fast” MRI protocols are ongoing but they still use gadolinium contrast. Some work is being done with non-contrast MRI and Dr. Killelea noted that it shows some promise in detecting certain lesions. 

In the session on Ethical Issues in Breast Cancer Surgery, Dr. Rachel Greenup discussed how to manage the situation when the principles of respect for patient autonomy conflict with the standard of care. She noted that patient autonomy allows for us (as physicians) to educate but not to decide care for patients, and that poor physician-patient communication is a key factor in patients opting for non-standard care. Factors associated with patients declining standard therapy include a negative first experience, an uncaring / insensitive / unnecessarily harsh oncologist, fear of side effects, and belief in the efficacy of alternative therapy.  In regards to endocrine therapy for breast cancer, she noted that unmanaged side effects are a significant contributor to stopping therapy. She also presented data showing poorer outcomes in patients who declined standard therapy, and that many, when faced with disease progression, did then opt for conventional treatment. She recommended that physicians review and present evidence to their patients in an understandable way, taking time to acknowledge fears and address patient barriers to treatment, provide time to adjust to diagnosis, suggest a 2ndopinion, and avoid abandonment or fear tactics. She also suggested that physicians be more open (when medically safe) to the combination of alternative and standard therapy. She stressed that patient autonomy is the priority, and that open communication can help align patient-centered care with evidence-based care. 

Dr. Terry Sarantou discussed the ethical issues of obtaining informed consent when performing a new surgical procedure, noting that there is FDA oversight for new drugs and surgical devices, but not for surgical procedures. He stressed that informed consent is a communication process, not a form to be signed. 

Recognizing the role that surgeons play in the current opioid crisis, Dr. Sarah DeSnyder discussed proper prescribing of narcotics in breast surgery. There was also an abstract presentation by Dr. Betty Fan (abstract 5808940, page 27) on this subject. She noted that women who expected postoperative pain or those who reported higher preoperative distress used more postoperative opioids for pain management. She stressed that physician and trainee education about proper prescribing is critical as is setting patient expectations for postoperative pain and providing non-narcotic options. The use of nerve blocks, long-acting local anesthetic agents, acetaminophen (Tylenol) and ibuprofen were also discussed. 

Photographs are an important part of breast and reconstructive surgery to document results both for patient and physician education as well as for quality assurance, and Dr. Toan Nguyen reviewed some of the ethical, legal and technical considerations to protect patient confidentiality and privacy. The ASBrS statement on this issue has been published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology.

In the session covering New Perspectives on Old Problems, Dr. Lee Wilke noted that with improved surgical techniques, breast conservation is now appropriate for select patients with more than one tumor in the breast. She did note that in up to 20-30% of patients with more than one tumor in the breast, the tumors are different subtypes, which may have implications for therapy – so pathologic analysis needs to be performed on all lesions. Dr. Stephen Grobmyer reviewed the current literature on local (in-breast) recurrence, noting that repeat breast conservation may be appropriate in some patients. However, if repeat radiation is performed, there is a higher risk of skin toxicity and potentially unacceptable cosmetic results. In addition, for left-sided breast cancers, repeat radiation raises concerns about cumulative radiation damage to the heart. Repeat lumpectomy without radiation is associated with a 20-40% risk of local recurrence. IORT may be utilized in some patients, but studies are ongoing and data is limited.

Dr. David Euhus discussed that genetic testing does not only potentially impact the surgical procedure that is recommended, but may influence the decision for radiation therapy as well as systemic therapy. In addition, results of genetic testing may impact surveillance for additional breast or other cancers in the patient as well as recommendations for family members. The ASBrS recently updated their genetic testing guideline, recommending that genetic testing be considered for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. (Additional perspective)

In the session on Benign Breast Disease, Dr. Jane Mendez reviewed breast fistulas (persistent drainage through the skin) and infections, and Dr. Vincent Reid reviewed some of the non-malignant masses that can develop in the male breast. Dr. Katrina Mitchell, who is a breast surgeon as well as a certified lactation consultant, provided recommendations for management of post-partum patients who develop mastitis or breast abscess. One of the key recommendations was that patients should continue breast feeding (better than pumping for keeping the breast empty) and that patients do not need to “pump and dump” the milk while on antibiotics. 

Dr. Stephanie Valente discussed breast pain, which is a common problem that frustrates both patients and physicians. Pain is a symptom of breast cancer in less than 2% of cases.  Suggestions for treatment include decrease caffeine, nicotine, and dietary fat intake, and consider supplementation with essential fatty acids such as evening primrose oil (EPO) or vitamin E. However, she noted that that some studies show that EPO and vitamin E are no better than placebo. Both flaxseed and chasteberry have shown to be effective. Diclofenac (a non-narcotic pain medication) gel can be effective but it needs to be used for several weeks before improvement is seen and it is expensive. In severe cases, danazol (an androgen hormone) or tamoxifen can be used but are associated with significant side effects.

There were several sessions on oncoplastic surgery. Oncoplastics refers to combining oncologic (cancer) surgery with attention to cosmetic outcomes. Basic principles include placing the incision in the least conspicuous place and closure of as much of the breast tissue once the tumor has been removed as possible to minimize, or preferably avoid, a depression in the area. More advanced techniques include rotation flaps and mastopexy (lift) that may be performed by breast surgeons or breast surgeons collaborating with their plastic surgical colleagues. There was also a session discussing some of the advanced microvascular procedures that are being studied to treat lymphedema as well as a video session showing some basic techniques to perform a better (flat) closure for patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction. 

The keynote address was delivered by the actress Kathy Bates. Ms. Bates underwent a bilateral mastectomy for breast cancer and has bilateral arm lymphedema. She is a spokeswoman for the Lymphatic Education and Research Network, working to educate, support, and advocate for patients who have lymphedema. She delivered a moving and unique address to the group, combining science and her personal patient perspective. An abstract (abstract 581304, page 22) presented during the meeting demonstrated that postoperative surveillance with bioimpedence spectroscopy compared to tape measure resulted in a 10% decrease in the number of patients requiring complex decongestive physiotherapy. However, these results, which were a planned interim data analysis, did not reach statistical significance.

The new ASBrS screening mammography guidelines were released at the meeting. They recommend formal risk assessment starting at age 25 and a risk-based approach to screening, as well as annual mammography starting at age 40 for average-risk women. (Additional commentary)

All of the research abstracts and posters can be found here. There were many interesting and thought-providing presentations, but it is important to remember that abstracts represent incomplete data and have not been subject to the peer-review process. The oral abstracts that were presented will be published in manuscript form later this year. The poster gallery can be found here (not all posters have been uploaded by the presenters).

As usual if anyone is interested in one of the articles referenced but does not have access, or wants additional information, please send your email address to me: contact at drattai dot com and I will be happy to respond.

This post has not been endorsed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

/by