Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Recent data support the use of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in women with one to three positive lymph nodes; however, the benefit of PMRT in patients with micrometastatic nodal disease (N1mi) is unknown. We evaluated the survival impact of PMRT in patients with N1mi within the National Cancer Database. METHODS:The pattern of care and survival benefit of PMRT was examined in women with pT1-2N1mi breast cancer who underwent mastectomy without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were employed for survival analysis, and subanalyses of high-risk patients and a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort were completed. RESULTS:From 2004 to 2014, we identified 14,019 patients who fitted the study criteria. PMRT was delivered in 18.5% of patients and its use increased over the study period. Patients treated with PMRT were younger, had better performance status and larger primaries, were estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, had higher grade, lymphovascular invasion and positive surgical margins, and more often received systemic therapy. PMRT was significantly associated with overall survival (OS) in univariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75 [0.64-0.89]), but was not significant in multivariable analysis (adjusted HR 1.01 [0.84-1.20]). There was no survival benefit to PMRT in ER-negative, high-grade, and/or young patients. There were 2 (0.9%) death events in the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) + PMRT group versus 21 (2.9%) in the SLNB-alone group (log-rank p = 0.053), and 8 (3.9%) death events in the axillary lymph node biopsy (ALNB) + PMRT group versus 27 (3.6%) in the axillary lymph node dissection-alone group (p = 0.82). There was no significant association between PMRT and OS within the PSM subgroup. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this largest reported retrospective study, no OS differences were associated with PMRT, which suggests that PMRT may not benefit every patient with microscopic nodal disease.

Twenty percent of breast cancer cases may be related to a genetic mutation conferring an increased risk of malignancy. The most common and prominent breast cancer susceptibility genes are BRCA1 and BRCA2, found in nearly 40% of such cases. However, continued interest and investigation of cancer genetics has led to the identification of a myriad of different breast cancer susceptibility genes. Additional genes, each with unique significance and associated characteristics, continue to be recognized. Concurrently, advanced genetic testing, while still controversial, has become more accessible and cost-effective. As oncologic and reconstructive advances continue to be made in prophylactic breast reconstructive surgery, patients may present to plastic surgeons with an increasingly more diverse array of genetic diagnoses to discuss breast reconstruction. It is therefore imperative that plastic surgeons be familiar with these breast cancer susceptibility genes and their clinical implications. We, therefore, aim to review the most common non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer susceptibility genetic mutations in an effort to assist plastic surgeons in counseling and managing this unique patient population. Included in this review are syndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes such as TP53, PTEN, CDH1, and STK11, among others. Nonsyndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes herein reviewed include PALB2, CHEK2, and ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene. With this knowledge, plastic surgeons can play a central role in the diagnosis and comprehensive treatment, including successful breast reconstruction, of all patients carrying genetic mutations conferring increased risk for breast malignancies.

INTRODUCTION: We performed the present study to better understand the practices and preferences of women with an elevated risk of breast cancer by merging the registries from 2 separate institutions and comparing the clinical characteristics and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data from women enrolled in institutional review board-approved registries from 2003 to 2015 at the New York University Langone Medical Center and University of Vermont Medical Center were evaluated. We compared patient characteristics, risk factors, uptake of prevention methods, and cancer rates between the 2 registries. RESULTS: A total of 1035 women were included in the present analysis. We found a 99% concordance of variables collected between the 2 registries. Significant differences were found in age, risk characteristics, uptake of prevention methods, and cancer rates between the 2 registries. The uptake of chemoprevention was low (8% for all women), with greater uptake among women with atypia found on biopsy examination (66%) than among those with a strong family history or BRCA mutations. Women with BRCA mutations accounted for 76% of those undergoing risk-reducing surgery. Of the 1035 women, 43 (4%) developed breast cancer. Of these, 86% were diagnosed with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 or 1 disease, 95% with tumors < 2 cm, and 70% with poor to moderately differentiated pathologic features. Only 1 of the women who developed breast cancer had been undergoing chemoprevention, and none had undergone previous prophylactic surgery. CONCLUSION: We found a high degree of concordance between registries, suggesting no barriers exist to multi-institutional collaboration. Overall, a low uptake of prevention opportunities was found in this high-risk population. Women developing breast cancer had predominantly low-stage but higher grade disease, which might suggest a benefit to participation in surveillance (or high-risk) programs.

Background: To examine the trends in clinicopathologic features, treatment, and survival of male breast cancer (MBC), utilizing the National Cancer Data Base (NC

Purpose: Well-established risk factors for breast cancer include family history (FH), BRCA mutations and biopsies with atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Several mathematical models, including the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models, have been developed to quantify a patient's risk for developing breast cancer. These models all differ in the list of variables and risk factors that are included in risk calculations. As a result, there is no single model that best estimates the risk for all high risk patients. The purpose of this study is to examine the application of the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models in a contemporary cohort of women who are enrolled in a comprehensive high-risk breast cancer database. Methods: The institutional High Risk Breast Cancer Consortium (HRBCC) was established in January 2011. Patients who were at high risk for developing breast cancer based on family history (maternal and paternal), BRCA mutations, AH and LCIS were eligible to enroll in the database. The following variables were included in this analysis: age, family history, genetic testing results, reproductive history, AH, LCIS, Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick scores, risk reduction strategies, and outcomes. All clinical data are obtained from detailed questionnaires filled out by patients who consent to the database studies and from a review of electronic medical records. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results: A total of 604 women were enrolled between 1/2011-2/2016. The median age was 51 years (range 20-87). The majority of women were Caucasian (83%). 52% had a strong FH, 13% were BRCA1 and 2 positive, 48% had AH, and 22% had LCIS. 47% of patients in our high risk program were not eligible for Gail model analysis (age <35 years, BRCA mutation carriers, history of LCIS). Only one patient was not eligible for Tyrer-Cuzick model calculation based on age >84 years. For patients who were eligible for Gail model analysis, 26 (8%) women did not meet criteria (5-year risk >=1.7%) for being designated as high risk for breast cancer. 34 (6%) of our patients did not have Tyrer- Cuzick scores over 20% (criterion for high risk). Notably, majority of the patients (69%) who were not defined as high-risk based on Gail scores >=1.7% or Tyrer-Cuzick scores >=20%, had a strong family history of breast cancer. Only 14 (2%) patients developed breast cancer during our study period, and the majority (93%) of the cancers were early stage (stage 0, I). Conclusions: Our institutional high-risk database includes women who are at high risk based on well-established risk factors for developing breast cancer (FH, BRCA mutations, AH, LCIS). Current mathematical models including the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick models did not capture the increased risk of breast cancer in 8% of our population. While the models are helpful, in clinical practice they are not necessarily the be-all and end-all. Using heuristic risk factors is more time efficient and comprehensive risk assessment allows the clinicians and patients to better understand risk. Identifying patients as high risk and enrolling them in a high-risk database and program allow us to capture long term follow up, recommend surveillance for early detection, and better understand the effectiveness of different risk reduction and management strategies for this population