Search

Abstract Background The introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme has led to a considerable increase in the detection of impalpable breast cancer. Patients with impalpable breast cancer typically undergo oncological resection facilitated either by the insertion of guide wires placed stereo-tactically or through ultra-sound guided skin markings to delineate the extent of a lesion. The need for radiological interventions on the day of surgery adds complexity and introduces the risk that a patient may accidentally transferred to the operating room directly without the image guidance procedure. Case report A case is described of a patient who required a pre-operative ultrasound scan in order to localise an impalpable breast cancer but who was accidentally taken directly to the operating theatre (OR) and anaesthetised without pre-operative intervention. The radiologist was called to the OR and an on-table ultrasound was performed without further consequence. Conclusion It is evident that breast cancer patients undergoing image-guided resection are exposed to an additional layer of clinical risks. These risks are not offset by the World Health Organisation surgical safety checklist in its present guise. Here, we review a number of simple and inexpensive changes to the system that may improve the safety of the breast cancer patient undergoing surgery.

Abstract Background Adnexal masses are not uncommon in patients with breast cancer. Breast cancer and ovarian malignancies are known to be associated. In patients with breast cancer and co-existing pleural effusions, ascites and adnexal masses, the probability of disseminated disease is high. Nevertheless, benign ovarian masses can mimic this clinical picture when they are associated with Meigs' syndrome making the work-up and management of these patients challenging. To our knowledge, there are no similar reports in the literature and therefore we present this case to highlight this entity. Case presentation A 56-year old woman presented with a 4 cm, grade 2, invasive ductal carcinoma of her left breast. Pre-treatment staging investigations showed a 13.5 cm mass in her left ovary, a small amount of ascites and a large right pleural effusion. Serum tumour markers showed a raised CA125 supporting the malignant nature of the ovarian mass. The cytology from the pleural effusion was indeterminate but thoracoscopic biopsy failed to show malignancy. The patient was strongly against mastectomy and she was commenced on neo-adjuvant Letrozole 2.5 mg daily with a view to perform breast conserving surgery. After a good response to the hormone manipulation, the patient had breast conserving surgery, axillary sampling and laparoscopic excision of the ovarian mass which was eventually found to be a benign ovarian fibroma. Conclusion Despite the high probability of disseminated malignancy when an ovarian mass associated with ascites if found in a patient with a breast cancer and pleural effusion, clinicians should be aware about rare benign syndromes, like Meigs', which may mimic a similar picture and mislead the diagnosis and management plan.

Abstract Introduction Breast cancer in men is rare. The evidence about treatment has been derived from data on the management of the disease in women. The usual treatment is for male patients to undergo modified radical mastectomy. There is insufficient experience of breast conserving surgery with preservation of the nipple. The management of patients who demand such an approach for personal reasons remains a challenge for both the surgeon and oncologist. Case presentation A 50-year-old man with a breast cancer was successfully managed with breast conserving surgery with nipple preservation combined with axillary clearance and postoperative radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormone treatment. Since there are no similar cases in the literature, we discuss the feasibility, safety and possible indications of such an approach. Conclusion Despite the limited indications and evidence about the safety and efficacy of breast conserving surgery with nipple preservation in men with breast cancer, it is a feasible approach if other options are declined by the patient. More studies are necessary to reach firm conclusions about the safety of such an approach.

Background Following therapeutic mammoplasty (TM), the contralateral breast may require a later balancing procedure to optimize shape and symmetry. The alternative is to offer patients simultaneous TM with immediate contralateral symmetrization via a dual-surgeon approach, with the goal of reducing costs and minimizing the number of subsequent hospital appointments in an era of COVID-19 surges. The aim of this cost–consequence analysis is to characterize the cost–benefit of immediate bilateral symmetrization dual-operator mammoplasty versus staged unilateral single operator for breast cancer surgery. Method A prospective single-centre observational study was conducted at an academic teaching centre for breast cancer surgery in the UK. Pseudonymized data for clinicopathological variables and procedural care information, including the type of initial breast-conserving surgery and subsequent reoperation(s), were extracted from the electronic patient record. Financial data were retrieved using the Patient-Level Information and Costing Systems. Results Between April 2014 and March 2020, 232 women received either immediate bilateral (n  = 44), staged unilateral (n  = 57) for breast cancer, or unilateral mammoplasty alone (n  = 131). The median (interquartile range (i.q.r.)) additional cost of unilateral mammoplasty with staged versus immediate bilateral mammoplasty was €5500 (€4330 to €6570) per patient (P  < 0.001), which represents a total supplementary financial burden of €313 462 to the study institution. There was no significant difference between groups in age, Charlson comorbidity index, operating minutes, time to adjuvant radiotherapy in months, or duration of hospital stay. Conclusion Synchronous dual-surgeon immediate bilateral TM can deliver safe immediate symmetrization and is financially beneficial, without delay to receipt of adjuvant therapy, or additional postoperative morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inflammatory breast cancer is a complex pathological entity associated with poor outcomes. This locoregional disease is characterised by a rapid clinical course in the presence breast erythema and infiltration of dermal lymphatics by tumours cells. Herein we describe a case of inflammatory breast cancer with a rare presentation and disease course defined by a profound systemic inflammatory response in the absence of an infective cause. Case presentation: The patient presented with pyrexia and malaise following a recent tissue diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer. At the time of admission the patient demonstrated clinical features of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the presence of a negative septic screen. Her condition deteriorated despite systemic broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics and she underwent surgical debulking of a 180 × 135 × 100 mm (821 g) primary tumour composed of oedematous, friable and haemorrhagic tissue (pT4, N1a, M0; oestrogen/progesterone/ HER-2 receptor negative). Following surgery, the clinical picture dramatically improved with cessation of SIRS and normalisation of inflammatory markers. After 4 weeks the patient required readmission to hospital due to recurrent SIRS and negative septic screen. The patient received treatment with systemic chemotherapy showing transient clinical improvement and suppression of SIRS. Despite on going chemotherapy, systemic antibiotics and a trial of steroid therapy the patient died 5 months after her initial presentation to hospital. At the time of death she demonstrated persistent SIRS with elevated inflammatory markers. Conclusion: This is the first case report of inflammatory breath cancer associated with SIRS in the absence of clinically confirmed infection. Important learning points highlighted by this case are: (a) recognition of the diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainties that still exist in the context of inflammatory breast cancer; (b) appreciation of the potential paraneoplastic systemic inflammatory manifestations of this disease, and finally; (c) the importance a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach to treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]