Faculty Bibliography

The consequences of patient identification errors due to specimen mislabeling can be deleterious. We describe two near-miss events involving mislabeled breast specimens from two patients who sought treatment at our institution. In both cases, microscopic review of the slides identified inconsistencies between the histologic findings and patient age, unveiling specimen identification errors. By correlating the clinical information with the microscopic findings, we identified mistakes that had occurred at the time of specimen accessioning at the original laboratories. In both cases, thanks to a timely reassignment of the specimens, the patients suffered no harm. These cases highlight the importance of routine clinical and pathologic correlation as a critical component of quality assurance and patient safety. A review of possible specimen identification errors in the anatomic pathology setting is presented.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Cancer occurs in 0.05% to 0.1% of all pregnancies. Despite literature reporting good oncologic and fetal outcomes in women treated for cancer during pregnancy, as many as 44% of gynecologists would offer termination, and 37% would not administer chemotherapy or radiotherapy in pregnancy. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aims of this study were to summarize current recommendations for the treatment of cervical and ovarian cancers in pregnancy and to review updates on existing knowledge regarding the safety of surgical and chemotherapeutic treatments in pregnancy, including both oncologic and fetal outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION/METHODS:A detailed literature review was performed on PubMed. RESULTS:The treatment of gynecologic malignancies during pregnancy mirrors that outside pregnancy, with a balance between maternal versus fetal health. Fertility-sparing surgery can be offered to stage IA2 and low-risk IB1 cervical, stage I epithelial ovarian, germ cell ovarian, or sex-cord stromal ovarian tumors. Delayed treatment can be offered for stage IB1 cervical cancer. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy can be given for advanced gynecologic cancers with good disease-free survival without significant adverse neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:A multidisciplinary approach and improved education of providers regarding the surgical and chemotherapeutic treatments in pregnancy are needed in order to fully inform patients regarding treatment options. Further research in women who are pregnant is needed to determine the safety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures used in the nonpregnant woman. RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This article reviews and supports treatment of gynecologic cancer during pregnancy, calls for additional study and long-term follow-up, and justifies improved education of patients and providers regarding treatment options. TARGET AUDIENCE/BACKGROUND:Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:After completing this activity, the learner should be better able to (1) review general principles in the management and treatment of gynecologic cancers in pregnancy, (2) review the diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in pregnancy, and (3) review the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer in pregnancy.

The management of breast cancer during pregnancy poses unique challenges and requires a multi-disciplinary approach. In this review, we discuss the treatment of breast cancer in pregnancy and recent updates regarding the safety of surgical and chemotherapeutic treatments, including both oncologic and fetal outcomes. The treatment of breast cancer during pregnancy mirrors that outside of pregnancy, with a few important differences dictated by the balance of maternal versus fetal health. Overall, surgical treatment, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, and/or adjuvant chemotherapy are feasible in most women during pregnancy. Further research to determine the safety of these therapies in pregnancy-associated breast cancer is warranted.

Despite advances in estimating prognosis and predicting response to adjuvant systemic therapy, the status of the axillary lymph nodes remains a critical component in initial surgical planning and in determining therapeutic strategies for patients with breast cancer. Buoyed by evidence from multi-institutional randomized clinical trials, the last 2 decades have witnessed remarkable and practice-changing advances in our approach to the axilla. This review concentrates on the current best practice in axillary management for both node-negative and node-positive patients, with particular focus on the evolving management of the axilla in the era of neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

BACKGROUND:In breast cancer patients with nodal metastases at presentation, false-negative rates lower than 10 % have been demonstrated for sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) when three or more negative sentinel nodes (SLNs) are retrieved. However, the frequency with which axillary dissection (ALND) can be avoided is uncertain. METHODS:Among 534 prospectively identified consecutive patients with clinical stages 2 and 3 cancer receiving NAC from November 2013 to November 2015, all biopsy-proven node-positive (N+) cases were identified. Patients clinically node-negative after NAC were eligible for SLNB. The indications for ALND were failed mapping, fewer than three SLNs retrieved, and positive SLNs. RESULTS:Of 288 N+ patients, 195 completed surgery, with 132 (68 %) of these patients eligible for SLNB. The median age was 50 years. Of these patients, 73 (55 %) were estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), 21 (16 %) were ER- and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive (HER2+), and 38 (29 %) were triple-negative. In four cases, SLNB was deferred intraoperatively. Among 128 SLNB attempts, three or more SLNs were retrieved in 110 cases (86 %), one or two SLNs were retrieved in 15 cases (12 %), and failed mapping occurred in three cases (2 %). In 66 cases, ALND was indicated: 54 (82 %) for positive SLNs, 9 (14 %) for fewer than three negative SLNs, and 3 (4 %) for failed mapping. Persistent disease was found in 17 % of the patients with fewer than three negative SLNs retrieved. Of the 128 SLNB cases, 62 (48 %) had SLNB alone with three or more SLNs retrieved. Among 195 N+ patients who completed surgery, nodal pathologic complete response (pCR) was achieved for 49 %, with rates ranging from 21 % for ER+/HER2- to 97 % for ER-/HER2+ cases, and was significantly more common than breast pCR in ER+/HER2- and triple-negative cases. CONCLUSIONS:Nearly 70 % of the N+ patients were eligible for SLNB after NAC. For 48 %, ALND was avoided, supporting the role of NAC in reducing the need for ALND among patients presenting with nodal metastases.

BACKGROUND:Reexcision rates in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for early-stage invasive breast cancer are highly variable. The Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) published consensus guidelines to help standardize practice. We sought to determine reexcision rates before and after guideline adoption at our institution. METHODS:We identified patients with stage I or II invasive breast cancer initially treated with BCS between June 1, 2013, and October 31, 2014. Margins were defined as positive (tumor on ink), close (≤1 mm), or negative (>1 mm), and were recorded for both invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma-in situ (DCIS) components. Reexcision rates were quantified, characteristics were compared between groups, and multivariable logistic regression was performed. RESULTS:A total of 1205 patients were identified, 504 before and 701 after the guideline adoption (January 1, 2014). Clinical and pathologic characteristics were similar between time periods. Reexcision rates significantly declined from 21.4 to 15.1 % (p = 0.006) after guideline adoption. A multivariable model identified extensive intraductal component (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.2-5.2), multifocality (OR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.6), positive (OR 844.4, 95 % CI 226.3-5562.5) and close (OR 38.3, 95 % CI 21.5-71.8) ductal carcinoma-in situ margin, positive (OR 174.2, 95 % CI 66.2-530.0) and close (OR 6.4, 95 % CI 3.0-13.6) invasive margin, and time period (OR 0.5, 95 % CI 0.3-0.9 for post vs. pre) as independently associated with reexcision. CONCLUSIONS:Overall reexcision rates declined significantly after guideline adoption. Close invasive margins were associated with higher rates of reexcision than negative invasive margins in both time periods; however, the effect diminished in the postguideline adoption period. Thus, we expect continued decline in reexcision rates as adherence to guidelines becomes more uniform.

IMPORTANCE:For early-stage breast cancer, breast conservation surgery (BCS) is a conservative option for women and involves removing the tumor with a margin of surrounding breast tissue. If margins are not tumor free, patients undergo additional surgery to avoid local recurrence. OBJECTIVES:To investigate the use of BCS in New York State and to determine rates of reoperation, procedure choice, and the effect of surgeon experience on the odds of a reoperation 90 days after BCS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A population-based sample of 89 448 women undergoing primary BCS for cancer were selected and examined from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2013, in New York State mandatory reporting databases. All hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in New York State were included. Data were analyzed from December 15, 2014, to November 1, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Rate of reoperations within 90 days of the initial BCS procedure. RESULTS:During the study period, 89 448 women 20 years or older (mean [SD] age, 61.7 [13.7] years) underwent primary BCS. In 2013, 1416 women in New York aged 20 to 49 years underwent BCS compared with 3068 women aged 50 to 64 years and 3644 women 65 years or older. These numbers represent a significant decrease from 1960 women younger than 50 years in 2003 who underwent BCS (P < .001 for trend) but little change from the 2899 women aged 50 to 64 years and 3270 women 65 years or older who underwent BCS in 2003. Mean overall rate of 90-day reoperation was 30.9% (27 010 of 87 499 patients) and decreased over time from 39.5% (6630 of 16 805 patients) in 2003 to 2004 to 23.1% (5148 of 22 286 patients) in 2011 to 2013. Rates of reoperation were highest in women aged 20 to 49 years (37.7% [6990 of 18 524]) and lowest in women 65 years or older (26.3% [9656 of 36 691]) (P < .001 for trend). Over time, more patients underwent BCS as a subsequent procedure, from 4237 of 6630 patients (63.9%) in 2003 to 2004 to 4258 of 5148 (82.7%) in 2011 to 2013 (P < .001 for trend). Among the 19 466 women who underwent BCS as a second procedure, 2429 (12.5%) required a third intervention (2.7% of all women included). Significant surgeon-level variation was found in the data; 90-day rates of reoperations by surgeon ranged from 0% to 100%. Low-volume surgeons (<14 cases per year) had an unadjusted rate of 35.2% compared with 29.6% in middle-volume (14-33 cases per year) and 27.5% in high-volume (≥34 cases per year) surgeons. The difference persisted in adjusted analyses (odds ratio for low-volume surgeons, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.19-1.87]; for middle-volume surgeons, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.93-1.56]) compared with high-volume surgeons (used as the reference category). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Use of BCS has decreased overall, most steeply in younger women. Nearly 1 in 4 women underwent a reoperation within 90 days of BCS across New York State from 2011 to 2013, compared with 2 in 5 from 2003 to 2004. Rates vary significantly by surgeon, and initial BCS performed by high-volume surgeons was associated with a 33% lower risk for a reoperation.

BACKGROUND:The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines include incorporation of fertility preservation guidelines in the care of breast oncology patients. This study aimed to examine the baseline knowledge and preferences concerning fertility preservation among women of childbearing age with newly diagnosed breast cancer at the time of their initial visit to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). METHODS:A questionnaire on reproductive history, fertility knowledge, and preservation options was administered to women 18-45 years of age with newly diagnosed breast cancer at MSKCC between May and September 2011. RESULTS:The inclusion criteria were met by 60 women eligible for analysis who had a median age of 40 years (range 20-45 years). The findings showed that 50 % of the women either desired children in the future or were unsure whether they wanted children, with 9 % reporting that they received information about fertility preservation options before their MSKCC visit. Women who had never been pregnant were more likely than those with prior pregnancies to consider having children in the future (p = 0.001) and to contemplate fertility preservation options both before (p = 0.001) and after (p = 0.0002) cancer treatment. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Early referral allows patients to take advantage of fertility preservation options while preventing delay in the initiation of systemic therapy. Referral by the breast surgical oncologist at the time of the initial visit has the potential to increase fertility knowledge because it appears that many women have not yet received fertility information at this early treatment stage.