Search

Whilst some of the diversity in management of women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may be explained by tumour characteristics, the role of patient preference and the factors underlying those preferences have been less frequently examined. We have used a descriptive qualitative study to explore treatment decisions for a group of Australian women diagnosed with DCIS through mammographic screening. Semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with 16 women diagnosed with DCIS between January 2012 and December 2018, recruited through the LifePool dataset (a subset of BreastScreen participants who have agreed to participate in research). Content analysis using deductive coding identified three themes: participants did not have a clear understanding of their diagnosis or prognosis; reported involvement in decision making about management varied; specific factors including the psychosexual impact of mastectomy and perceptions of radiotherapy, could act as barriers or facilitators to specific decisions about treatment. The treatment the women received was not simply determined by the characteristics of their disease. Interaction with the managing clinician was pivotal, however many other factors played a part in individual decisions. Recognising that decisions are not purely a function of disease characteristics is important for both women with DCIS and the clinicians who care for them.Copyright © 2021

Whilst some of the diversity in management of women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may be explained by tumour characteristics, the role of patient preference and the factors underlying those preferences have been less frequently examined. We have used a descriptive qualitative study to explore treatment decisions for a group of Australian women diagnosed with DCIS through mammographic screening. Semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with 16 women diagnosed with DCIS between January 2012 and December 2018, recruited through the LifePool dataset (a subset of BreastScreen participants who have agreed to participate in research). Content analysis using deductive coding identified three themes: participants did not have a clear understanding of their diagnosis or prognosis; reported involvement in decision making about management varied; specific factors including the psychosexual impact of mastectomy and perceptions of radiotherapy, could act as barriers or facilitators to specific decisions about treatment. The treatment the women received was not simply determined by the characteristics of their disease. Interaction with the managing clinician was pivotal, however many other factors played a part in individual decisions. Recognising that decisions are not purely a function of disease characteristics is important for both women with DCIS and the clinicians who care for them.Copyright © 2021

Purpose: Genomic tests improve accuracy of risk prediction for early breast cancers but these are expensive. This study evaluated the clinical utility of EndoPredict, in terms of impact on adjuvant therapy recommendations and identification of parameters to guide selective application. Method(s): Patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, and early-stage invasive breast cancer were tested with EndoPredict. Two cohorts were recruited: one consecutively and another at clinical team discretion. Systemic treatment recommendations were recorded before and after EndoPredict results were revealed to the multidisciplinary team. Result(s): 233 patients were recruited across five sites: 123 consecutive and 110 at clinical team discretion. In the consecutive cohort 50.6% (62/123) cases were classified high risk of recurrence by EndoPredict, compared with 62.7% (69/110) in the selective cohort. A change in treatment recommendation was significantly more likely (p < 0.0001) in the selective cohort (43/110, 39.1%) compared to the consecutive group (11/123, 8.9%). The strongest driver of selective recruitment was intermediate grade histology, whilst logistic regression modelling demonstrated that nodal status (p < 0.001), proliferative rate (p = 0.001), and progesterone receptor positivity (p < 0.001) were the strongest discriminators of risk. Conclusion(s): Whilst molecular risk can be predicted by traditional variables in a high proportion of cases, EndoPredict had a greater impact on treatment decisions in those cases selected for testing at team discretion. This is indicative of the robust ability of the clinical team to identify cases most likely to benefit from testing, underscoring the value of genomic tests in the oncologists' tool kit.Copyright © 2021, Crown.

To examine practice patterns for breast cancer patients with limited sentinel node (SN) disease in light of the ACOSOG Z0011 results. Retrospective analysis of patients with T1-2 breast cancer and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) admitted between January 2009 and December 2012. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments were recorded. Eight hundred positive SLNBs were identified. A total of 452 (56.5%) proceeded to completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND). cALND rate decreased from 65.1% to 49.7% from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. cALND was performed for micrometastasis or isolated tumor cells in 39.3% in 2009-2010 and 22.2% in 2011-2012, whereas for macrometastases the rates were 83.1% and 68.6%, respectively. cALND rates diminished for both Z0011-eligible and -ineligible patients. The ACOSOG Z0011 trial presentation and publication coincided with a reduction in cALND for breast cancer with limited nodal disease. There appears equipoise regarding management of macrometastatic SN disease.Copyright © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

To examine practice patterns for breast cancer patients with limited sentinel node (SN) disease in light of the ACOSOG Z0011 results. Retrospective analysis of patients with T1-2 breast cancer and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) admitted between January 2009 and December 2012. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments were recorded. Eight hundred positive SLNBs were identified. A total of 452 (56.5%) proceeded to completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND). cALND rate decreased from 65.1% to 49.7% from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. cALND was performed for micrometastasis or isolated tumor cells in 39.3% in 2009-2010 and 22.2% in 2011-2012, whereas for macrometastases the rates were 83.1% and 68.6%, respectively. cALND rates diminished for both Z0011-eligible and -ineligible patients. The ACOSOG Z0011 trial presentation and publication coincided with a reduction in cALND for breast cancer with limited nodal disease. There appears equipoise regarding management of macrometastatic SN disease.Copyright © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background: When a papillary lesion is identified on core biopsy of an impalpable breast lesion, standard practice involves excisional biopsy. Recent literature has questioned the need for surgical excision in patients with benign core biopsy and radiological concordance. Our aim was to assess whether surgical excision is required by targeting this concordant group in a large screen-detected population. Method(s): A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of all benign papillary core biopsies between February 1995 and September 2007 at North Western Breast Screen and Monash Breast Screen in Melbourne, Australia was performed. All patients had surgical excision, enabling correlation between core and final excisional biopsy results on all lesions. All histology reports were reviewed and the radiology was reassessed. Result(s): During a 14-year period, 5783 core biopsies were performed from 633,163 screening mammograms. Eighty patients (0.01%) had benign papilloma on core biopsy, no patients had atypia on core biopsy, and all patients had benign radiological features. Of the 80 patients, 15 patients were found to have ductal carcinoma in situ (8) or invasive ductal carcinoma (7) on final pathology, yielding a 19% malignant rate. Conclusion(s): Core biopsy showing benign papillary lesion, even where radiology is also suggestive of a benign process, cannot exclude malignancy, and therefore surgical excision is required. © 2008 Society of Surgical Oncology.