Surgical Oncology

Surgical excision with 2-mm clear margins combined with whole-breast irradiation may be the optimal standard to reduce recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), according to a multidisciplinary consensus panel.

Despite the widespread use of surgical excision in breast-conserving therapy among patients with DCIS, there is no consensus on the optimal negative margin to prevent recurrence and re-excision. Therefore, the Society of Surgical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a panel to answer the following question: What margin width minimizes the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence in patients with DCIS receiving breast-conserving surgery?

The guideline panel reviewed 20 studies including 7,883 DCIS patients. A median of 100% of patients received whole-breast radiation therapy and a median of 21% received endocrine therapy. Patients were followed for a median of 6.5 years and the median incidence of recurrence was 8.3%.

“There is no debate that a positive margin ... implies a potentially incomplete resection and is associated with a higher rate of [recurrence],” according to Monica Morrow, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and her fellow panelists. Further, the addition of whole-breast irradiation did not negate this increased risk, the panelists noted (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.3573).

According to the meta-analysis, patients with 2-mm negative margins plus whole-breast irradiation were significantly less likely to experience ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence compared with patients who had excisions with positive margins.

“Margins of at least 2 mm are associated with a reduced risk of [recurrence] relative to narrower negative margin widths in patients receiving [whole-breast radiotherapy]. The routine practice of obtaining negative margin widths wider than 2 mm is not supported by the evidence,” they wrote.

The panel also noted that treatment with excision alone is associated with higher rates of recurrence compared with treatment involving with both excision and whole-breast radiation therapy. However, if patients are treated with excision alone, the optimal margin, which is unknown for this subset of patients, should be at least 2 millimeters, according to the guideline.

Due to variability in specimen sampling and in margin evaluation and assessment, “clinical judgment must be used in determining whether patients with smaller negative margin widths (0 or 1 mm) require re-excision,” the panelists noted. “The findings should not be extrapolated to DCIS patients treated with [accelerated partial breast irradiation] or those with invasive carcinoma for whom a separate guideline has been developed,” Dr. Morrow and her associates wrote.

The guideline development process was funded by the Susan G. Komen Foundation. The authors had no relevant disclosures to report.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Surgical excision with 2-mm clear margins combined with whole-breast irradiation may be the optimal standard to reduce recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), according to a multidisciplinary consensus panel.

Despite the widespread use of surgical excision in breast-conserving therapy among patients with DCIS, there is no consensus on the optimal negative margin to prevent recurrence and re-excision. Therefore, the Society of Surgical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a panel to answer the following question: What margin width minimizes the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence in patients with DCIS receiving breast-conserving surgery?

The guideline panel reviewed 20 studies including 7,883 DCIS patients. A median of 100% of patients received whole-breast radiation therapy and a median of 21% received endocrine therapy. Patients were followed for a median of 6.5 years and the median incidence of recurrence was 8.3%.

“There is no debate that a positive margin ... implies a potentially incomplete resection and is associated with a higher rate of [recurrence],” according to Monica Morrow, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and her fellow panelists. Further, the addition of whole-breast irradiation did not negate this increased risk, the panelists noted (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.3573).

According to the meta-analysis, patients with 2-mm negative margins plus whole-breast irradiation were significantly less likely to experience ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence compared with patients who had excisions with positive margins.

“Margins of at least 2 mm are associated with a reduced risk of [recurrence] relative to narrower negative margin widths in patients receiving [whole-breast radiotherapy]. The routine practice of obtaining negative margin widths wider than 2 mm is not supported by the evidence,” they wrote.

The panel also noted that treatment with excision alone is associated with higher rates of recurrence compared with treatment involving with both excision and whole-breast radiation therapy. However, if patients are treated with excision alone, the optimal margin, which is unknown for this subset of patients, should be at least 2 millimeters, according to the guideline.

Due to variability in specimen sampling and in margin evaluation and assessment, “clinical judgment must be used in determining whether patients with smaller negative margin widths (0 or 1 mm) require re-excision,” the panelists noted. “The findings should not be extrapolated to DCIS patients treated with [accelerated partial breast irradiation] or those with invasive carcinoma for whom a separate guideline has been developed,” Dr. Morrow and her associates wrote.

The guideline development process was funded by the Susan G. Komen Foundation. The authors had no relevant disclosures to report.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Surgical excision with 2-mm clear margins combined with whole-breast irradiation may be the optimal standard to reduce recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), according to a multidisciplinary consensus panel.

Despite the widespread use of surgical excision in breast-conserving therapy among patients with DCIS, there is no consensus on the optimal negative margin to prevent recurrence and re-excision. Therefore, the Society of Surgical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a panel to answer the following question: What margin width minimizes the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence in patients with DCIS receiving breast-conserving surgery?

The guideline panel reviewed 20 studies including 7,883 DCIS patients. A median of 100% of patients received whole-breast radiation therapy and a median of 21% received endocrine therapy. Patients were followed for a median of 6.5 years and the median incidence of recurrence was 8.3%.

“There is no debate that a positive margin ... implies a potentially incomplete resection and is associated with a higher rate of [recurrence],” according to Monica Morrow, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and her fellow panelists. Further, the addition of whole-breast irradiation did not negate this increased risk, the panelists noted (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.3573).

According to the meta-analysis, patients with 2-mm negative margins plus whole-breast irradiation were significantly less likely to experience ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence compared with patients who had excisions with positive margins.

“Margins of at least 2 mm are associated with a reduced risk of [recurrence] relative to narrower negative margin widths in patients receiving [whole-breast radiotherapy]. The routine practice of obtaining negative margin widths wider than 2 mm is not supported by the evidence,” they wrote.

The panel also noted that treatment with excision alone is associated with higher rates of recurrence compared with treatment involving with both excision and whole-breast radiation therapy. However, if patients are treated with excision alone, the optimal margin, which is unknown for this subset of patients, should be at least 2 millimeters, according to the guideline.

Due to variability in specimen sampling and in margin evaluation and assessment, “clinical judgment must be used in determining whether patients with smaller negative margin widths (0 or 1 mm) require re-excision,” the panelists noted. “The findings should not be extrapolated to DCIS patients treated with [accelerated partial breast irradiation] or those with invasive carcinoma for whom a separate guideline has been developed,” Dr. Morrow and her associates wrote.

The guideline development process was funded by the Susan G. Komen Foundation. The authors had no relevant disclosures to report.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

SEATTLE – Oncologic transoral robotic surgery patients spend less time in the hospital if they have neck dissections at the same time, instead of later, according to a review of 441 patients by Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.

The average hospital length of stay (LOS) was 6 days for the 349 patients (79.1%) who had lymphadenectomy neck dissections at the same time as transoral robotic surgery (TORS). The 92 patients (20.9%) who had staged procedures - neck dissections and TORS about a month apart, with TORS usually done first - stayed in the hospital an average of 8 days (P less than .0001). After risk adjustment, LOS was 43% shorter for concurrent dissections.

Cardiac arrhythmias were also more common in staged patients, perhaps because they had general anesthesia twice in a short period or maybe because staged patients were more likely to be obese (18.5% vs. 7.5%; P less than .01).

However, there were no statistically significant outcome differences otherwise, and the investigators concluded that “concurrent and staged procedures are equally safe. It is therefore reasonable to allow operator preference and patient factors to determine surgical logistics.”

Neck dissection timing has been controversial since the advent of TORS several years ago, when surgeons and administrators realized they could fit more cases into the schedule by doing neck dissections, which can take a few hours, at a different time.

Proponents of the staged approach argue, among other things, that it reduces the risk of fistulas and tracheotomies, and allows surgeons a second go at positive margins. Advocates of concurrent procedures counter that fistulas, if found, can be repaired right away, and that same-time surgery saves money, allows for earlier adjuvant therapy, and cuts anesthesia risks.

There hasn’t been much data to settle the debate, and no one has compared LOS before, so it was “important” to look into the matter, lead investigator Catherine Frenkel, MD, a Stony Brook general surgery resident, said at the American Head and Neck Society International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer.

German investigators also recently concluded that it’s pretty much a draw between concurrent and staged dissections. In a study of 41 TORS cases, “the timing of neck dissection did not make a significant difference in the outcomes. We suggest, therefore, that aspiring and established TORS teams do not restrict their appropriate indications due to robotic slot and theatre time constraints, but perform each indicated TORS case as soon as possible within their given systems, even if the neck dissections cannot be done on the same day,” they said (Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jun;41[6]:773-8).

In addition to obese patients, those who had tongue or tonsil lesions were more likely to be staged in the Stony Brook analysis. About half of the surgeons in the study stuck solely to concurrent procedures, while a handful opted for the staged approach, and the rest did both. Perhaps not surprisingly, high-volume surgeons – those who did five or more TORS cases per year – were more likely to stage.

Almost two-thirds of patients had at least one complication, most commonly renal failure, heart problems, extended ventilation, and surgical errors, which included accidental punctures, postop fistulas, hemorrhages, and wound complications. A total of 13% of patients had at least one postop readmission. Apart from arrhythmias, there were no statistically significant differences in complication or 30-day readmission rates between concurrent and staged patients. High-volume surgeons were less likely to have complications.

Postop bleeding was another common problem, and more likely with staged surgeries (12% vs. 7%). Concurrent procedures had a slightly higher rate of new tracheotomies and gastrostomies, but again the differences were not statistically significant, even with pedicle and free-flap reconstruction. There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Oncologic transoral robotic surgery patients spend less time in the hospital if they have neck dissections at the same time, instead of later, according to a review of 441 patients by Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.

The average hospital length of stay (LOS) was 6 days for the 349 patients (79.1%) who had lymphadenectomy neck dissections at the same time as transoral robotic surgery (TORS). The 92 patients (20.9%) who had staged procedures - neck dissections and TORS about a month apart, with TORS usually done first - stayed in the hospital an average of 8 days (P less than .0001). After risk adjustment, LOS was 43% shorter for concurrent dissections.

Cardiac arrhythmias were also more common in staged patients, perhaps because they had general anesthesia twice in a short period or maybe because staged patients were more likely to be obese (18.5% vs. 7.5%; P less than .01).

However, there were no statistically significant outcome differences otherwise, and the investigators concluded that “concurrent and staged procedures are equally safe. It is therefore reasonable to allow operator preference and patient factors to determine surgical logistics.”

Neck dissection timing has been controversial since the advent of TORS several years ago, when surgeons and administrators realized they could fit more cases into the schedule by doing neck dissections, which can take a few hours, at a different time.

Proponents of the staged approach argue, among other things, that it reduces the risk of fistulas and tracheotomies, and allows surgeons a second go at positive margins. Advocates of concurrent procedures counter that fistulas, if found, can be repaired right away, and that same-time surgery saves money, allows for earlier adjuvant therapy, and cuts anesthesia risks.

There hasn’t been much data to settle the debate, and no one has compared LOS before, so it was “important” to look into the matter, lead investigator Catherine Frenkel, MD, a Stony Brook general surgery resident, said at the American Head and Neck Society International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer.

German investigators also recently concluded that it’s pretty much a draw between concurrent and staged dissections. In a study of 41 TORS cases, “the timing of neck dissection did not make a significant difference in the outcomes. We suggest, therefore, that aspiring and established TORS teams do not restrict their appropriate indications due to robotic slot and theatre time constraints, but perform each indicated TORS case as soon as possible within their given systems, even if the neck dissections cannot be done on the same day,” they said (Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jun;41[6]:773-8).

In addition to obese patients, those who had tongue or tonsil lesions were more likely to be staged in the Stony Brook analysis. About half of the surgeons in the study stuck solely to concurrent procedures, while a handful opted for the staged approach, and the rest did both. Perhaps not surprisingly, high-volume surgeons – those who did five or more TORS cases per year – were more likely to stage.

Almost two-thirds of patients had at least one complication, most commonly renal failure, heart problems, extended ventilation, and surgical errors, which included accidental punctures, postop fistulas, hemorrhages, and wound complications. A total of 13% of patients had at least one postop readmission. Apart from arrhythmias, there were no statistically significant differences in complication or 30-day readmission rates between concurrent and staged patients. High-volume surgeons were less likely to have complications.

Postop bleeding was another common problem, and more likely with staged surgeries (12% vs. 7%). Concurrent procedures had a slightly higher rate of new tracheotomies and gastrostomies, but again the differences were not statistically significant, even with pedicle and free-flap reconstruction. There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Oncologic transoral robotic surgery patients spend less time in the hospital if they have neck dissections at the same time, instead of later, according to a review of 441 patients by Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.

The average hospital length of stay (LOS) was 6 days for the 349 patients (79.1%) who had lymphadenectomy neck dissections at the same time as transoral robotic surgery (TORS). The 92 patients (20.9%) who had staged procedures - neck dissections and TORS about a month apart, with TORS usually done first - stayed in the hospital an average of 8 days (P less than .0001). After risk adjustment, LOS was 43% shorter for concurrent dissections.

Cardiac arrhythmias were also more common in staged patients, perhaps because they had general anesthesia twice in a short period or maybe because staged patients were more likely to be obese (18.5% vs. 7.5%; P less than .01).

However, there were no statistically significant outcome differences otherwise, and the investigators concluded that “concurrent and staged procedures are equally safe. It is therefore reasonable to allow operator preference and patient factors to determine surgical logistics.”

Neck dissection timing has been controversial since the advent of TORS several years ago, when surgeons and administrators realized they could fit more cases into the schedule by doing neck dissections, which can take a few hours, at a different time.

Proponents of the staged approach argue, among other things, that it reduces the risk of fistulas and tracheotomies, and allows surgeons a second go at positive margins. Advocates of concurrent procedures counter that fistulas, if found, can be repaired right away, and that same-time surgery saves money, allows for earlier adjuvant therapy, and cuts anesthesia risks.

There hasn’t been much data to settle the debate, and no one has compared LOS before, so it was “important” to look into the matter, lead investigator Catherine Frenkel, MD, a Stony Brook general surgery resident, said at the American Head and Neck Society International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer.

German investigators also recently concluded that it’s pretty much a draw between concurrent and staged dissections. In a study of 41 TORS cases, “the timing of neck dissection did not make a significant difference in the outcomes. We suggest, therefore, that aspiring and established TORS teams do not restrict their appropriate indications due to robotic slot and theatre time constraints, but perform each indicated TORS case as soon as possible within their given systems, even if the neck dissections cannot be done on the same day,” they said (Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jun;41[6]:773-8).

In addition to obese patients, those who had tongue or tonsil lesions were more likely to be staged in the Stony Brook analysis. About half of the surgeons in the study stuck solely to concurrent procedures, while a handful opted for the staged approach, and the rest did both. Perhaps not surprisingly, high-volume surgeons – those who did five or more TORS cases per year – were more likely to stage.

Almost two-thirds of patients had at least one complication, most commonly renal failure, heart problems, extended ventilation, and surgical errors, which included accidental punctures, postop fistulas, hemorrhages, and wound complications. A total of 13% of patients had at least one postop readmission. Apart from arrhythmias, there were no statistically significant differences in complication or 30-day readmission rates between concurrent and staged patients. High-volume surgeons were less likely to have complications.

Postop bleeding was another common problem, and more likely with staged surgeries (12% vs. 7%). Concurrent procedures had a slightly higher rate of new tracheotomies and gastrostomies, but again the differences were not statistically significant, even with pedicle and free-flap reconstruction. There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – It’s better to place gastrostomy tubes before head and neck cancer surgery rather than after, according to a review of 184 patients.

The 73 patients in the study who got preoperative gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) were sicker than the 111 who had G-tubes placed after surgery, with significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, lower body mass indexes, and greater likelihoods of having both prior radiation and more extensive resections requiring flap reconstructions. They were, overall, a higher-risk population with a greater potential for bad outcomes, which is why tubes were placed preemptively.

Even so, at 6 months, the total average cost for the preop G-tube group was $39,751 versus $48,999 for the postoperative group, a savings of $9,248 per patient. The difference was driven by inpatient savings; the preop group left the hospital an average of 3.2 days sooner than their postop G-tube peers (9.4 days versus 12.6 days; P less than .001). Readmissions and other postdischarge costs were similar between the two groups, as were wound and nonwound complications.

“This data suggests that preoperative placement of G-tubes is associated with lower total health care costs. It appears there’s a potential for health care cost savings if candidates for G-tubes can be identified” before surgery and the tubes placed preoperatively, said investigator Joshua Waltonen, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

That’s exactly what Wake Forest is doing now. Physicians there use a scoring system to determine how likely patients are to need G-tubes after surgery. If the risk is high, patients are counseled that putting one in beforehand is a good idea, he said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

The team previously found that risk factors include, among others, supracricoid laryngectomy, prior radiation, flap reconstruction, tracheostomy placement, and preop dysphagia and weight loss (JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Dec;140[12]:1198-206).

Two factors probably account for the shorter lengths of stay, Dr. Waltonen said. First, patients with preop feeding tubes go into surgery with a nutritional boost, which helps with recovery. Also, with a preop tube, patients don’t have to wait for general surgery to get around to placing one postoperatively.

Both groups were about 60 years old on average. The mean body mass index of the preop group was 23 kg/m^{2 and} 26 kg/m^{2 in the postop group} (P = .009). Almost two-thirds of preop patients had prior radiation versus a quarter of postop patients (P less than .001). Tumor and nodal stages were similar.

There was no outside funding for the work, and Dr. Waltonen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – It’s better to place gastrostomy tubes before head and neck cancer surgery rather than after, according to a review of 184 patients.

The 73 patients in the study who got preoperative gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) were sicker than the 111 who had G-tubes placed after surgery, with significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, lower body mass indexes, and greater likelihoods of having both prior radiation and more extensive resections requiring flap reconstructions. They were, overall, a higher-risk population with a greater potential for bad outcomes, which is why tubes were placed preemptively.

Even so, at 6 months, the total average cost for the preop G-tube group was $39,751 versus $48,999 for the postoperative group, a savings of $9,248 per patient. The difference was driven by inpatient savings; the preop group left the hospital an average of 3.2 days sooner than their postop G-tube peers (9.4 days versus 12.6 days; P less than .001). Readmissions and other postdischarge costs were similar between the two groups, as were wound and nonwound complications.

“This data suggests that preoperative placement of G-tubes is associated with lower total health care costs. It appears there’s a potential for health care cost savings if candidates for G-tubes can be identified” before surgery and the tubes placed preoperatively, said investigator Joshua Waltonen, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

That’s exactly what Wake Forest is doing now. Physicians there use a scoring system to determine how likely patients are to need G-tubes after surgery. If the risk is high, patients are counseled that putting one in beforehand is a good idea, he said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

The team previously found that risk factors include, among others, supracricoid laryngectomy, prior radiation, flap reconstruction, tracheostomy placement, and preop dysphagia and weight loss (JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Dec;140[12]:1198-206).

Two factors probably account for the shorter lengths of stay, Dr. Waltonen said. First, patients with preop feeding tubes go into surgery with a nutritional boost, which helps with recovery. Also, with a preop tube, patients don’t have to wait for general surgery to get around to placing one postoperatively.

Both groups were about 60 years old on average. The mean body mass index of the preop group was 23 kg/m^{2 and} 26 kg/m^{2 in the postop group} (P = .009). Almost two-thirds of preop patients had prior radiation versus a quarter of postop patients (P less than .001). Tumor and nodal stages were similar.

There was no outside funding for the work, and Dr. Waltonen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – It’s better to place gastrostomy tubes before head and neck cancer surgery rather than after, according to a review of 184 patients.

The 73 patients in the study who got preoperative gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) were sicker than the 111 who had G-tubes placed after surgery, with significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, lower body mass indexes, and greater likelihoods of having both prior radiation and more extensive resections requiring flap reconstructions. They were, overall, a higher-risk population with a greater potential for bad outcomes, which is why tubes were placed preemptively.

Even so, at 6 months, the total average cost for the preop G-tube group was $39,751 versus $48,999 for the postoperative group, a savings of $9,248 per patient. The difference was driven by inpatient savings; the preop group left the hospital an average of 3.2 days sooner than their postop G-tube peers (9.4 days versus 12.6 days; P less than .001). Readmissions and other postdischarge costs were similar between the two groups, as were wound and nonwound complications.

“This data suggests that preoperative placement of G-tubes is associated with lower total health care costs. It appears there’s a potential for health care cost savings if candidates for G-tubes can be identified” before surgery and the tubes placed preoperatively, said investigator Joshua Waltonen, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

That’s exactly what Wake Forest is doing now. Physicians there use a scoring system to determine how likely patients are to need G-tubes after surgery. If the risk is high, patients are counseled that putting one in beforehand is a good idea, he said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

The team previously found that risk factors include, among others, supracricoid laryngectomy, prior radiation, flap reconstruction, tracheostomy placement, and preop dysphagia and weight loss (JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Dec;140[12]:1198-206).

Two factors probably account for the shorter lengths of stay, Dr. Waltonen said. First, patients with preop feeding tubes go into surgery with a nutritional boost, which helps with recovery. Also, with a preop tube, patients don’t have to wait for general surgery to get around to placing one postoperatively.

Both groups were about 60 years old on average. The mean body mass index of the preop group was 23 kg/m^{2 and} 26 kg/m^{2 in the postop group} (P = .009). Almost two-thirds of preop patients had prior radiation versus a quarter of postop patients (P less than .001). Tumor and nodal stages were similar.

There was no outside funding for the work, and Dr. Waltonen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Direct, intraoperative electrical stimulation of the spinal accessory nerve reduced shoulder pain and dysfunction from oncologic neck dissection in a small, randomized trial.

Shoulder problems are common after neck dissection because of traction and compression of the spinal accessory nerve. Although brief electrical stimulation (BES) has been shown before to improve regeneration and recovery of injured peripheral nerves, it hasn’t been shown until now to help patients recover from neck surgery, said investigator Brittany Barber, MD, a fifth-year resident at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

After neck dissection in 21 patients, the investigators wrapped a small electrode (Automatic Periodic Stimulation [APS] electrode, Medtronic) around the spinal accessory nerve at the base of the skull on the side of the neck with the most extensive nodal burden; the electrode delivered 100-msec pulses at 20 Hz and 3-5 V for an hour, and then the neck was closed. The team compared outcomes with 20 controls who had neck dissections without BES.

At 12 months, the BES group had an 8.4 point drop from baseline on the 100-point Constant Murley Shoulder Outcome Score, while the controls lost a mean of 29.4 points. The Murley score measures shoulder pain, performance of daily tasks, range of motion, and strength; higher scores are better. Similarly, BES patients lost a mean of 16.2 points on the 50-point Neck Dissection Impairment Index, while controls lost 30.1 points, and controls performed markedly worse on nerve conduction studies. In short, BES patients “were less likely to have clinically significant shoulder dysfunction” after surgery, Dr. Barber said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

The APS electrode is a tiny silicone cuff with a metal conductor. The device was originally designed to monitor recurrent laryngeal nerve function during thyroid surgery. “We had [Medtronic] write a software patch” so it could be used for stimulation, she said.

The team is planning a larger, multicenter trial to shore up their findings, and also plans to test the device for hypoglossal nerve preservation after resection.

Transcutaneous nerve stimulation is another option, but it’s a bit uncomfortable and patients often don’t complete their sessions. “Compliance is not as good as with a single intraoperative procedure,” and the results aren’t that great. “We thought this might be a better alternative,” Dr. Barber said.

The two groups were well matched: Mean age was about 60 years and most patients had advanced-stage tumors. There was no difference in preop shoulder problems or risks for poor postop shoulder outcomes, and no difference in the number of level 5 neck dissections or mean number of lymph nodes removed during surgery.

There was no outside funding for the work. Dr. Barber had no disclosures; a coinvestigator was a Medtronic consultant.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Direct, intraoperative electrical stimulation of the spinal accessory nerve reduced shoulder pain and dysfunction from oncologic neck dissection in a small, randomized trial.

Shoulder problems are common after neck dissection because of traction and compression of the spinal accessory nerve. Although brief electrical stimulation (BES) has been shown before to improve regeneration and recovery of injured peripheral nerves, it hasn’t been shown until now to help patients recover from neck surgery, said investigator Brittany Barber, MD, a fifth-year resident at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

After neck dissection in 21 patients, the investigators wrapped a small electrode (Automatic Periodic Stimulation [APS] electrode, Medtronic) around the spinal accessory nerve at the base of the skull on the side of the neck with the most extensive nodal burden; the electrode delivered 100-msec pulses at 20 Hz and 3-5 V for an hour, and then the neck was closed. The team compared outcomes with 20 controls who had neck dissections without BES.

At 12 months, the BES group had an 8.4 point drop from baseline on the 100-point Constant Murley Shoulder Outcome Score, while the controls lost a mean of 29.4 points. The Murley score measures shoulder pain, performance of daily tasks, range of motion, and strength; higher scores are better. Similarly, BES patients lost a mean of 16.2 points on the 50-point Neck Dissection Impairment Index, while controls lost 30.1 points, and controls performed markedly worse on nerve conduction studies. In short, BES patients “were less likely to have clinically significant shoulder dysfunction” after surgery, Dr. Barber said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

The APS electrode is a tiny silicone cuff with a metal conductor. The device was originally designed to monitor recurrent laryngeal nerve function during thyroid surgery. “We had [Medtronic] write a software patch” so it could be used for stimulation, she said.

The team is planning a larger, multicenter trial to shore up their findings, and also plans to test the device for hypoglossal nerve preservation after resection.

Transcutaneous nerve stimulation is another option, but it’s a bit uncomfortable and patients often don’t complete their sessions. “Compliance is not as good as with a single intraoperative procedure,” and the results aren’t that great. “We thought this might be a better alternative,” Dr. Barber said.

The two groups were well matched: Mean age was about 60 years and most patients had advanced-stage tumors. There was no difference in preop shoulder problems or risks for poor postop shoulder outcomes, and no difference in the number of level 5 neck dissections or mean number of lymph nodes removed during surgery.

There was no outside funding for the work. Dr. Barber had no disclosures; a coinvestigator was a Medtronic consultant.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Direct, intraoperative electrical stimulation of the spinal accessory nerve reduced shoulder pain and dysfunction from oncologic neck dissection in a small, randomized trial.

Shoulder problems are common after neck dissection because of traction and compression of the spinal accessory nerve. Although brief electrical stimulation (BES) has been shown before to improve regeneration and recovery of injured peripheral nerves, it hasn’t been shown until now to help patients recover from neck surgery, said investigator Brittany Barber, MD, a fifth-year resident at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

After neck dissection in 21 patients, the investigators wrapped a small electrode (Automatic Periodic Stimulation [APS] electrode, Medtronic) around the spinal accessory nerve at the base of the skull on the side of the neck with the most extensive nodal burden; the electrode delivered 100-msec pulses at 20 Hz and 3-5 V for an hour, and then the neck was closed. The team compared outcomes with 20 controls who had neck dissections without BES.

At 12 months, the BES group had an 8.4 point drop from baseline on the 100-point Constant Murley Shoulder Outcome Score, while the controls lost a mean of 29.4 points. The Murley score measures shoulder pain, performance of daily tasks, range of motion, and strength; higher scores are better. Similarly, BES patients lost a mean of 16.2 points on the 50-point Neck Dissection Impairment Index, while controls lost 30.1 points, and controls performed markedly worse on nerve conduction studies. In short, BES patients “were less likely to have clinically significant shoulder dysfunction” after surgery, Dr. Barber said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

The APS electrode is a tiny silicone cuff with a metal conductor. The device was originally designed to monitor recurrent laryngeal nerve function during thyroid surgery. “We had [Medtronic] write a software patch” so it could be used for stimulation, she said.

The team is planning a larger, multicenter trial to shore up their findings, and also plans to test the device for hypoglossal nerve preservation after resection.

Transcutaneous nerve stimulation is another option, but it’s a bit uncomfortable and patients often don’t complete their sessions. “Compliance is not as good as with a single intraoperative procedure,” and the results aren’t that great. “We thought this might be a better alternative,” Dr. Barber said.

The two groups were well matched: Mean age was about 60 years and most patients had advanced-stage tumors. There was no difference in preop shoulder problems or risks for poor postop shoulder outcomes, and no difference in the number of level 5 neck dissections or mean number of lymph nodes removed during surgery.

There was no outside funding for the work. Dr. Barber had no disclosures; a coinvestigator was a Medtronic consultant.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Adjunct testosterone improved short-term cardiac function in head, neck, and cervical cancer patients undergoing standard treatment in a small randomized trial from the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.

The finding suggests that testosterone might counteract the cardiotoxic effects of chemotherapy, reducing “the incidence of chemotherapy-induced remodeling. It might also have rehabilitation implications and make patients better surgical candidates. Further investigation is warranted,” said investigator Albert Chamberlain, MD, an endocrine research fellow at the university. Although the results were positive, follow-up was short; years-long data are needed to know if testosterone really protects the heart from chemotherapy damage.

Dr. Chamberlain’s team looked into the issue because “many current chemotherapy drug classes have cardiotoxicity that progresses subclinically for a long time” before problems emerge. “Testosterone is known to cause vasodilation in both large and resistance arteries,” which might help prevent damage. “With that in mind, we decided to” investigate testosterone’s impact on cardiac performance during chemotherapy, he said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

Five women and one man were randomized to weekly intramuscular 100 mg testosterone injections for 7 weeks; six men and four women were randomized to placebo injections. They were all recently diagnosed with stage IIIB, IV, or recurrent head and neck cancer, or cervical cancer, and were undergoing concomitant standard-of-care chemotherapy or chemoradiation. Cardiac function was measured blindly by transthoracic echocardiogram at baseline and the end of the study.

The testosterone group had significantly improved stroke volumes (+18.2% versus –2.6%, P = 0.01), ejection fractions (+6.2% versus –1.8%, P = 0.02), and cardiac output (+1402.2 mL/min versus –16.8mL/min, P = 0.011). Heart rate, arterial pressure, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume remained unchanged in both groups, so the improved systolic function was attributed to reduced vascular resistance in the testosterone group (–26.5% versus +3.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.001).

Systolic improvements remained as cardiac index increased 27.6% in the testosterone group versus 2.8% in the placebo group. Testosterone didn’t seem to have any negative impacts on diastolic function. A placebo patient had a stroke, but there were no other adverse events in the study.

Although improved stroke volume is likely due to the reduced afterload, “increased contractility cannot be eliminated as a potential contributing factor. End diastolic volume remained unchanged in both groups, [suggesting] that preload is unlikely to be the mechanism for increased stroke volume,” Dr. Chamberlain said.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chamberlain reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Adjunct testosterone improved short-term cardiac function in head, neck, and cervical cancer patients undergoing standard treatment in a small randomized trial from the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.

The finding suggests that testosterone might counteract the cardiotoxic effects of chemotherapy, reducing “the incidence of chemotherapy-induced remodeling. It might also have rehabilitation implications and make patients better surgical candidates. Further investigation is warranted,” said investigator Albert Chamberlain, MD, an endocrine research fellow at the university. Although the results were positive, follow-up was short; years-long data are needed to know if testosterone really protects the heart from chemotherapy damage.

Dr. Chamberlain’s team looked into the issue because “many current chemotherapy drug classes have cardiotoxicity that progresses subclinically for a long time” before problems emerge. “Testosterone is known to cause vasodilation in both large and resistance arteries,” which might help prevent damage. “With that in mind, we decided to” investigate testosterone’s impact on cardiac performance during chemotherapy, he said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

Five women and one man were randomized to weekly intramuscular 100 mg testosterone injections for 7 weeks; six men and four women were randomized to placebo injections. They were all recently diagnosed with stage IIIB, IV, or recurrent head and neck cancer, or cervical cancer, and were undergoing concomitant standard-of-care chemotherapy or chemoradiation. Cardiac function was measured blindly by transthoracic echocardiogram at baseline and the end of the study.

The testosterone group had significantly improved stroke volumes (+18.2% versus –2.6%, P = 0.01), ejection fractions (+6.2% versus –1.8%, P = 0.02), and cardiac output (+1402.2 mL/min versus –16.8mL/min, P = 0.011). Heart rate, arterial pressure, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume remained unchanged in both groups, so the improved systolic function was attributed to reduced vascular resistance in the testosterone group (–26.5% versus +3.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.001).

Systolic improvements remained as cardiac index increased 27.6% in the testosterone group versus 2.8% in the placebo group. Testosterone didn’t seem to have any negative impacts on diastolic function. A placebo patient had a stroke, but there were no other adverse events in the study.

Although improved stroke volume is likely due to the reduced afterload, “increased contractility cannot be eliminated as a potential contributing factor. End diastolic volume remained unchanged in both groups, [suggesting] that preload is unlikely to be the mechanism for increased stroke volume,” Dr. Chamberlain said.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chamberlain reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Adjunct testosterone improved short-term cardiac function in head, neck, and cervical cancer patients undergoing standard treatment in a small randomized trial from the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.

The finding suggests that testosterone might counteract the cardiotoxic effects of chemotherapy, reducing “the incidence of chemotherapy-induced remodeling. It might also have rehabilitation implications and make patients better surgical candidates. Further investigation is warranted,” said investigator Albert Chamberlain, MD, an endocrine research fellow at the university. Although the results were positive, follow-up was short; years-long data are needed to know if testosterone really protects the heart from chemotherapy damage.

Dr. Chamberlain’s team looked into the issue because “many current chemotherapy drug classes have cardiotoxicity that progresses subclinically for a long time” before problems emerge. “Testosterone is known to cause vasodilation in both large and resistance arteries,” which might help prevent damage. “With that in mind, we decided to” investigate testosterone’s impact on cardiac performance during chemotherapy, he said at the International Conference on Head and Neck Cancer, held by the American Head and Neck Society.

Five women and one man were randomized to weekly intramuscular 100 mg testosterone injections for 7 weeks; six men and four women were randomized to placebo injections. They were all recently diagnosed with stage IIIB, IV, or recurrent head and neck cancer, or cervical cancer, and were undergoing concomitant standard-of-care chemotherapy or chemoradiation. Cardiac function was measured blindly by transthoracic echocardiogram at baseline and the end of the study.

The testosterone group had significantly improved stroke volumes (+18.2% versus –2.6%, P = 0.01), ejection fractions (+6.2% versus –1.8%, P = 0.02), and cardiac output (+1402.2 mL/min versus –16.8mL/min, P = 0.011). Heart rate, arterial pressure, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume remained unchanged in both groups, so the improved systolic function was attributed to reduced vascular resistance in the testosterone group (–26.5% versus +3.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.001).

Systolic improvements remained as cardiac index increased 27.6% in the testosterone group versus 2.8% in the placebo group. Testosterone didn’t seem to have any negative impacts on diastolic function. A placebo patient had a stroke, but there were no other adverse events in the study.

Although improved stroke volume is likely due to the reduced afterload, “increased contractility cannot be eliminated as a potential contributing factor. End diastolic volume remained unchanged in both groups, [suggesting] that preload is unlikely to be the mechanism for increased stroke volume,” Dr. Chamberlain said.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chamberlain reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Adding oxaliplatin to perioperative fluorouracil and radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in advanced rectal cancer patients, compared with single-agent fluorouracil plus radiotherapy, investigators report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

For the Neoadjuvant FOLFOX6 Chemotherapy With or Without Radiation in Rectal Cancer (FOWARC) study, 495 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who were undergoing total mesorectal excision were randomly assigned to one of three preoperative treatment arms: neoadjuvant therapy with fluorouracil plus radiotherapy (fluorouracil-radiotherapy group), fluorouracil chemotherapy with perioperative fluorouracil and oxaliplatin plus radiotherapy (mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy group), or fluorouracil chemotherapy with perioperative fluorouracil and oxaliplatin without radiotherapy (mFOLFOX6 group).The rates of pCR were 14.0%, 27.5%, and 6.6% for patients in the fluorouracil-radiotherapy, mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy, and mFOLFOX6 groups, respectively, Dr. Yanhong Deng of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou City, China, and her associates reported (J Clin Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.6198).

No patients died during neoadjuvant treatment. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities occurred in 55.5% (n = 86), 88% (n = 139), and 24.5% (n = 40) of patients in the fluorouracil-radiotherapy group, mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy, and mFOLFOX6 groups, respectively. The most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were leukopenia, radiodermatitis, and radiation proctitis.

Initial analysis of this study showed that “compared with the single-agent fluorouracil, mFOLFOX6 concurrent with radiotherapy preoperatively results in a higher rate of pCR (14.0% vs. 27.5%), a higher good response rate, good compliance, and acceptable toxicity for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“These preliminary results suggest that a strategy of combining full-dose chemotherapy with radiation over chemosensitizing radiation may be a new option for neoadjuvant treatment in LARC,” they added.

Sun Yat-sen University funded this study. Dr. Deng and her associates did not have any disclosures to report.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Adding oxaliplatin to perioperative fluorouracil and radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in advanced rectal cancer patients, compared with single-agent fluorouracil plus radiotherapy, investigators report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

For the Neoadjuvant FOLFOX6 Chemotherapy With or Without Radiation in Rectal Cancer (FOWARC) study, 495 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who were undergoing total mesorectal excision were randomly assigned to one of three preoperative treatment arms: neoadjuvant therapy with fluorouracil plus radiotherapy (fluorouracil-radiotherapy group), fluorouracil chemotherapy with perioperative fluorouracil and oxaliplatin plus radiotherapy (mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy group), or fluorouracil chemotherapy with perioperative fluorouracil and oxaliplatin without radiotherapy (mFOLFOX6 group).The rates of pCR were 14.0%, 27.5%, and 6.6% for patients in the fluorouracil-radiotherapy, mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy, and mFOLFOX6 groups, respectively, Dr. Yanhong Deng of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou City, China, and her associates reported (J Clin Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.6198).

No patients died during neoadjuvant treatment. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities occurred in 55.5% (n = 86), 88% (n = 139), and 24.5% (n = 40) of patients in the fluorouracil-radiotherapy group, mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy, and mFOLFOX6 groups, respectively. The most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were leukopenia, radiodermatitis, and radiation proctitis.

Initial analysis of this study showed that “compared with the single-agent fluorouracil, mFOLFOX6 concurrent with radiotherapy preoperatively results in a higher rate of pCR (14.0% vs. 27.5%), a higher good response rate, good compliance, and acceptable toxicity for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“These preliminary results suggest that a strategy of combining full-dose chemotherapy with radiation over chemosensitizing radiation may be a new option for neoadjuvant treatment in LARC,” they added.

Sun Yat-sen University funded this study. Dr. Deng and her associates did not have any disclosures to report.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Adding oxaliplatin to perioperative fluorouracil and radiotherapy was associated with a higher rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in advanced rectal cancer patients, compared with single-agent fluorouracil plus radiotherapy, investigators report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

For the Neoadjuvant FOLFOX6 Chemotherapy With or Without Radiation in Rectal Cancer (FOWARC) study, 495 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who were undergoing total mesorectal excision were randomly assigned to one of three preoperative treatment arms: neoadjuvant therapy with fluorouracil plus radiotherapy (fluorouracil-radiotherapy group), fluorouracil chemotherapy with perioperative fluorouracil and oxaliplatin plus radiotherapy (mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy group), or fluorouracil chemotherapy with perioperative fluorouracil and oxaliplatin without radiotherapy (mFOLFOX6 group).The rates of pCR were 14.0%, 27.5%, and 6.6% for patients in the fluorouracil-radiotherapy, mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy, and mFOLFOX6 groups, respectively, Dr. Yanhong Deng of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou City, China, and her associates reported (J Clin Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.6198).

No patients died during neoadjuvant treatment. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities occurred in 55.5% (n = 86), 88% (n = 139), and 24.5% (n = 40) of patients in the fluorouracil-radiotherapy group, mFOLFOX6-radiotherapy, and mFOLFOX6 groups, respectively. The most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were leukopenia, radiodermatitis, and radiation proctitis.

Initial analysis of this study showed that “compared with the single-agent fluorouracil, mFOLFOX6 concurrent with radiotherapy preoperatively results in a higher rate of pCR (14.0% vs. 27.5%), a higher good response rate, good compliance, and acceptable toxicity for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“These preliminary results suggest that a strategy of combining full-dose chemotherapy with radiation over chemosensitizing radiation may be a new option for neoadjuvant treatment in LARC,” they added.

Sun Yat-sen University funded this study. Dr. Deng and her associates did not have any disclosures to report.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Limiting hormone receptor testing of diagnostic core biopisies containing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) could save up to $35 million in associated health care costs every year in the United States.

The results of a cost analysis conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University were so striking that the hospital has now eliminated reflex testing of core needle biopsies for DCIS, Christopher J. VandenBussche, MD, and his colleagues wrote in the American Journal of Surgical Pathology (2016;40:1090-9).

“We suggest that reflex [hormone receptor] testing of core needle biopsy specimens harboring DCIS should not be performed, as the results do not guide the next step in therapy,” wrote Dr. VandenBussche of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “On the basis of this study, we have convinced our clinicians and no longer reflexively perform estrogen- and progesterone-receptor [ER/PR] testing on core needle biopsy specimens with DCIS at Hopkins and encourage other institutions to follow suit.”

Conducting expensive hormone receptor testing of these biopsy samples before surgery doesn’t make clinical or financial sense, for several reasons, the team said:

• Hormone receptor status at biopsy has no effect on the next treatment step, as DCIS patients always progress first to surgical excision, not neoadjuvant hormone therapy.

• Surgery sometimes reveals extensive breast cancer in patents with pure DCIS, and these cancers will always need ER/PR testing, rendering irrelevant biopsy testing.

• Because ER and PR labeling are often heterogeneous in DCIS, negative results for ER/PR on small core needle biopsy specimens would have to be repeated anyway on surgical excision specimens with larger amounts of DCIS, to be sure that the result is truly negative.

• Hormone therapy for DCIS does decrease recurrence, but it doesn’t impact survival – and it does carry significant adverse effects. Therefore, many women refuse hormone therapy if they do have ER/PR-positive tumors.

• The independent role of PR status in DCIS is unproven, so testing for it is not supported by clinical evidence.

To examine the costs associated with reflexive ER/PR testing, the investigators reviewed 58 core needle biopsies of pure DCIS followed by surgical excision. None of the patients had neoadjuvant hormone therapy. Of the 58 tumors, 76% were pure DCIS, and 16% were DCIS with invasive breast cancer. Most of the DCIS (47) tumors were ER+/PR+; 6 were ER-/PR-; and 5 were ER+/PR-.

The team reviewed the records of 49 patients who underwent surgical excision and ended up with a diagnosis of pure DCIS. These included 46 ER-positive cases, and 3 that were ER-negative in both biopsy and excision.

The findings suggested that ER/PR results from either the biopsy and the surgical excision samples were relevant to therapy in only a portion of these patients.

“We found that the ER/PR results after surgical excision impacted therapy in at most only 16 of 49 cases (33%),” they said. These included the 3 ER-/PR-negative cases, which would, in any case, not have triggered hormone therapy; 10 patients who chose hormone therapy despite a Hopkins oncologist’s neutral recommendation; 1 of 2 who took hormone therapy on a Hopkins oncologist’s recommendation; and 2 of 3 who took it after seeing a non-Hopkins oncologist.

“In contrast,” the authors wrote, “in 33 of the cases (67%), the ER/PR result of the DCIS after surgical excision did not impact therapy.” All of these were ER-positive cases, including 4 patients who opted for bilateral mastectomies (no subsequent role for neoadjuvant therapy), 8 who declined to meet with an oncologist, 1 for whom hormone therapy was contraindicated, 8 (of 8) who declined hormone therapy when their Hopkins oncologist did not recommend it, 10 (of 20) who declined hormone therapy when their Hopkins oncologist was neutral about its risk/benefit ratio, 1 (of 2) who declined hormone therapy when the Hopkins oncologist recommended it, and the 1 patient (of 3) who declined hormone therapy after visiting a non-Hopkins oncologist.

After reviewing the costs associated with these cases, “we found that ER testing … costing $20,685.72 ($357 per patient) had been performed unnecessarily,” the investigators said. In addition, if the PR testing – which has never been proven clinically important in DCIS – had been eliminated, there would have been an additional $86.46 savings per patient, a total savings of $5,014.

“Extrapolating the increased cost of $583 per DCIS diagnosis on core needle biopsy to 60,000 new cases of DCIS in the United States each year, reflex core needle biopsy ER/PR testing unnecessarily increases costs by approximately $35 million,” the authors said. “We recommend that ER/PR not be reflexively ordered on core needle biopsy specimens or surgical excision specimens containing DCIS, but instead that ER alone be performed on surgical excision specimens only when hormone therapy is a serious consideration after medical oncology consultation.”

The group noted that this total reflects the total amount billed, not typical reimbursement. “Regardless,” they said, “the cost of this testing is staggering.”

The authors did not mention the study’s funding source. They had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @Alz_Gal

Limiting hormone receptor testing of diagnostic core biopisies containing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) could save up to $35 million in associated health care costs every year in the United States.

The results of a cost analysis conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University were so striking that the hospital has now eliminated reflex testing of core needle biopsies for DCIS, Christopher J. VandenBussche, MD, and his colleagues wrote in the American Journal of Surgical Pathology (2016;40:1090-9).

“We suggest that reflex [hormone receptor] testing of core needle biopsy specimens harboring DCIS should not be performed, as the results do not guide the next step in therapy,” wrote Dr. VandenBussche of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “On the basis of this study, we have convinced our clinicians and no longer reflexively perform estrogen- and progesterone-receptor [ER/PR] testing on core needle biopsy specimens with DCIS at Hopkins and encourage other institutions to follow suit.”

Conducting expensive hormone receptor testing of these biopsy samples before surgery doesn’t make clinical or financial sense, for several reasons, the team said:

• Hormone receptor status at biopsy has no effect on the next treatment step, as DCIS patients always progress first to surgical excision, not neoadjuvant hormone therapy.

• Surgery sometimes reveals extensive breast cancer in patents with pure DCIS, and these cancers will always need ER/PR testing, rendering irrelevant biopsy testing.

• Because ER and PR labeling are often heterogeneous in DCIS, negative results for ER/PR on small core needle biopsy specimens would have to be repeated anyway on surgical excision specimens with larger amounts of DCIS, to be sure that the result is truly negative.

• Hormone therapy for DCIS does decrease recurrence, but it doesn’t impact survival – and it does carry significant adverse effects. Therefore, many women refuse hormone therapy if they do have ER/PR-positive tumors.

• The independent role of PR status in DCIS is unproven, so testing for it is not supported by clinical evidence.

To examine the costs associated with reflexive ER/PR testing, the investigators reviewed 58 core needle biopsies of pure DCIS followed by surgical excision. None of the patients had neoadjuvant hormone therapy. Of the 58 tumors, 76% were pure DCIS, and 16% were DCIS with invasive breast cancer. Most of the DCIS (47) tumors were ER+/PR+; 6 were ER-/PR-; and 5 were ER+/PR-.

The team reviewed the records of 49 patients who underwent surgical excision and ended up with a diagnosis of pure DCIS. These included 46 ER-positive cases, and 3 that were ER-negative in both biopsy and excision.

The findings suggested that ER/PR results from either the biopsy and the surgical excision samples were relevant to therapy in only a portion of these patients.

“We found that the ER/PR results after surgical excision impacted therapy in at most only 16 of 49 cases (33%),” they said. These included the 3 ER-/PR-negative cases, which would, in any case, not have triggered hormone therapy; 10 patients who chose hormone therapy despite a Hopkins oncologist’s neutral recommendation; 1 of 2 who took hormone therapy on a Hopkins oncologist’s recommendation; and 2 of 3 who took it after seeing a non-Hopkins oncologist.

“In contrast,” the authors wrote, “in 33 of the cases (67%), the ER/PR result of the DCIS after surgical excision did not impact therapy.” All of these were ER-positive cases, including 4 patients who opted for bilateral mastectomies (no subsequent role for neoadjuvant therapy), 8 who declined to meet with an oncologist, 1 for whom hormone therapy was contraindicated, 8 (of 8) who declined hormone therapy when their Hopkins oncologist did not recommend it, 10 (of 20) who declined hormone therapy when their Hopkins oncologist was neutral about its risk/benefit ratio, 1 (of 2) who declined hormone therapy when the Hopkins oncologist recommended it, and the 1 patient (of 3) who declined hormone therapy after visiting a non-Hopkins oncologist.

After reviewing the costs associated with these cases, “we found that ER testing … costing $20,685.72 ($357 per patient) had been performed unnecessarily,” the investigators said. In addition, if the PR testing – which has never been proven clinically important in DCIS – had been eliminated, there would have been an additional $86.46 savings per patient, a total savings of $5,014.

“Extrapolating the increased cost of $583 per DCIS diagnosis on core needle biopsy to 60,000 new cases of DCIS in the United States each year, reflex core needle biopsy ER/PR testing unnecessarily increases costs by approximately $35 million,” the authors said. “We recommend that ER/PR not be reflexively ordered on core needle biopsy specimens or surgical excision specimens containing DCIS, but instead that ER alone be performed on surgical excision specimens only when hormone therapy is a serious consideration after medical oncology consultation.”

The group noted that this total reflects the total amount billed, not typical reimbursement. “Regardless,” they said, “the cost of this testing is staggering.”

The authors did not mention the study’s funding source. They had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @Alz_Gal

Limiting hormone receptor testing of diagnostic core biopisies containing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) could save up to $35 million in associated health care costs every year in the United States.

The results of a cost analysis conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University were so striking that the hospital has now eliminated reflex testing of core needle biopsies for DCIS, Christopher J. VandenBussche, MD, and his colleagues wrote in the American Journal of Surgical Pathology (2016;40:1090-9).

“We suggest that reflex [hormone receptor] testing of core needle biopsy specimens harboring DCIS should not be performed, as the results do not guide the next step in therapy,” wrote Dr. VandenBussche of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “On the basis of this study, we have convinced our clinicians and no longer reflexively perform estrogen- and progesterone-receptor [ER/PR] testing on core needle biopsy specimens with DCIS at Hopkins and encourage other institutions to follow suit.”

Conducting expensive hormone receptor testing of these biopsy samples before surgery doesn’t make clinical or financial sense, for several reasons, the team said:

• Hormone receptor status at biopsy has no effect on the next treatment step, as DCIS patients always progress first to surgical excision, not neoadjuvant hormone therapy.

• Surgery sometimes reveals extensive breast cancer in patents with pure DCIS, and these cancers will always need ER/PR testing, rendering irrelevant biopsy testing.

• Because ER and PR labeling are often heterogeneous in DCIS, negative results for ER/PR on small core needle biopsy specimens would have to be repeated anyway on surgical excision specimens with larger amounts of DCIS, to be sure that the result is truly negative.

• Hormone therapy for DCIS does decrease recurrence, but it doesn’t impact survival – and it does carry significant adverse effects. Therefore, many women refuse hormone therapy if they do have ER/PR-positive tumors.

• The independent role of PR status in DCIS is unproven, so testing for it is not supported by clinical evidence.

To examine the costs associated with reflexive ER/PR testing, the investigators reviewed 58 core needle biopsies of pure DCIS followed by surgical excision. None of the patients had neoadjuvant hormone therapy. Of the 58 tumors, 76% were pure DCIS, and 16% were DCIS with invasive breast cancer. Most of the DCIS (47) tumors were ER+/PR+; 6 were ER-/PR-; and 5 were ER+/PR-.

The team reviewed the records of 49 patients who underwent surgical excision and ended up with a diagnosis of pure DCIS. These included 46 ER-positive cases, and 3 that were ER-negative in both biopsy and excision.

The findings suggested that ER/PR results from either the biopsy and the surgical excision samples were relevant to therapy in only a portion of these patients.

“We found that the ER/PR results after surgical excision impacted therapy in at most only 16 of 49 cases (33%),” they said. These included the 3 ER-/PR-negative cases, which would, in any case, not have triggered hormone therapy; 10 patients who chose hormone therapy despite a Hopkins oncologist’s neutral recommendation; 1 of 2 who took hormone therapy on a Hopkins oncologist’s recommendation; and 2 of 3 who took it after seeing a non-Hopkins oncologist.

“In contrast,” the authors wrote, “in 33 of the cases (67%), the ER/PR result of the DCIS after surgical excision did not impact therapy.” All of these were ER-positive cases, including 4 patients who opted for bilateral mastectomies (no subsequent role for neoadjuvant therapy), 8 who declined to meet with an oncologist, 1 for whom hormone therapy was contraindicated, 8 (of 8) who declined hormone therapy when their Hopkins oncologist did not recommend it, 10 (of 20) who declined hormone therapy when their Hopkins oncologist was neutral about its risk/benefit ratio, 1 (of 2) who declined hormone therapy when the Hopkins oncologist recommended it, and the 1 patient (of 3) who declined hormone therapy after visiting a non-Hopkins oncologist.

After reviewing the costs associated with these cases, “we found that ER testing … costing $20,685.72 ($357 per patient) had been performed unnecessarily,” the investigators said. In addition, if the PR testing – which has never been proven clinically important in DCIS – had been eliminated, there would have been an additional $86.46 savings per patient, a total savings of $5,014.

“Extrapolating the increased cost of $583 per DCIS diagnosis on core needle biopsy to 60,000 new cases of DCIS in the United States each year, reflex core needle biopsy ER/PR testing unnecessarily increases costs by approximately $35 million,” the authors said. “We recommend that ER/PR not be reflexively ordered on core needle biopsy specimens or surgical excision specimens containing DCIS, but instead that ER alone be performed on surgical excision specimens only when hormone therapy is a serious consideration after medical oncology consultation.”

The group noted that this total reflects the total amount billed, not typical reimbursement. “Regardless,” they said, “the cost of this testing is staggering.”

The authors did not mention the study’s funding source. They had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @Alz_Gal

SAN DIEGO – Women diagnosed with ovarian cancer waited about 38 days, on average, from the initial concerning imaging test to initiation of treatment, according to a study analyzing health care transit times at a single community hospital.

“Ovarian cancer is such a hard disease to diagnose early,” Christopher J. LaFargue, MD, lead study author, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. “Once it’s diagnosed, it’s imperative that women get in to see the gynecologic oncologist [and] make sure their treatment care isn’t lagged for any reason.”

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

In an effort to characterize the length of time between critical points in the care of women with ovarian cancer and determine the impact of patient demographics, Dr. LaFargue and his associates retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 45 women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer at Long Beach (Calif.) Memorial Medical Center between January 2012 and May 2015.

They examined patient demographics, including preoperative CA-125. Time points of interest were first concerning imaging test, first gynecologic oncology appointment, initiation of treatment, and adjuvant therapy. They used univariate analyses to determine associations between specific patient demographics and the time intervals of interest.

Dr. LaFargue, a resident in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Irvine, reported that the mean age of patients was 61 years, and the mean driving distance to the hospital from the patients’ home was 11 miles. More than half of the patients were white (58%) and 62% of patients were diagnosed with stage III or IV disease. Preoperative CA-125 exceeded 200 U/mL in 62% of patients. Medicare enrollees with supplemental insurance made up less than half of the group (44%).

The researchers found that the average time from initial concerning imaging to start of treatment was about 38 days. The average time from initial imaging to the first office visit with a gynecologic oncologist was about 18 days. The time from that appointment to initial treatment was 19 days, on average. The time from the start of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to interval cytoreductive surgery was 103 days, on average.

The only factor that significantly impacted transit time was a patient’s CA-125 level. Those who had a level of 200 U/mL or greater were more likely to receive surgery or treatment quicker, compared with those who had a CA-125 level less than 200 U/mL. No other statistically significant associations between patient demographics and length of time intervals were observed.

“It would have been nice to have seen a correlation with insurance status,” Dr. LaFargue said. “That’s kind of what we were hoping for, because then you can make an argument with insurance payers that patients who have Medicare aren’t getting treated as quickly as those who have a PPO, for example.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size, lack of outcomes data, and the fact that it was conducted in a community hospital setting.

Dr. LaFargue reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Women diagnosed with ovarian cancer waited about 38 days, on average, from the initial concerning imaging test to initiation of treatment, according to a study analyzing health care transit times at a single community hospital.

“Ovarian cancer is such a hard disease to diagnose early,” Christopher J. LaFargue, MD, lead study author, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. “Once it’s diagnosed, it’s imperative that women get in to see the gynecologic oncologist [and] make sure their treatment care isn’t lagged for any reason.”

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

In an effort to characterize the length of time between critical points in the care of women with ovarian cancer and determine the impact of patient demographics, Dr. LaFargue and his associates retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 45 women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer at Long Beach (Calif.) Memorial Medical Center between January 2012 and May 2015.

They examined patient demographics, including preoperative CA-125. Time points of interest were first concerning imaging test, first gynecologic oncology appointment, initiation of treatment, and adjuvant therapy. They used univariate analyses to determine associations between specific patient demographics and the time intervals of interest.

Dr. LaFargue, a resident in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Irvine, reported that the mean age of patients was 61 years, and the mean driving distance to the hospital from the patients’ home was 11 miles. More than half of the patients were white (58%) and 62% of patients were diagnosed with stage III or IV disease. Preoperative CA-125 exceeded 200 U/mL in 62% of patients. Medicare enrollees with supplemental insurance made up less than half of the group (44%).

The researchers found that the average time from initial concerning imaging to start of treatment was about 38 days. The average time from initial imaging to the first office visit with a gynecologic oncologist was about 18 days. The time from that appointment to initial treatment was 19 days, on average. The time from the start of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to interval cytoreductive surgery was 103 days, on average.

The only factor that significantly impacted transit time was a patient’s CA-125 level. Those who had a level of 200 U/mL or greater were more likely to receive surgery or treatment quicker, compared with those who had a CA-125 level less than 200 U/mL. No other statistically significant associations between patient demographics and length of time intervals were observed.

“It would have been nice to have seen a correlation with insurance status,” Dr. LaFargue said. “That’s kind of what we were hoping for, because then you can make an argument with insurance payers that patients who have Medicare aren’t getting treated as quickly as those who have a PPO, for example.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size, lack of outcomes data, and the fact that it was conducted in a community hospital setting.

Dr. LaFargue reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Women diagnosed with ovarian cancer waited about 38 days, on average, from the initial concerning imaging test to initiation of treatment, according to a study analyzing health care transit times at a single community hospital.

“Ovarian cancer is such a hard disease to diagnose early,” Christopher J. LaFargue, MD, lead study author, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. “Once it’s diagnosed, it’s imperative that women get in to see the gynecologic oncologist [and] make sure their treatment care isn’t lagged for any reason.”

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

In an effort to characterize the length of time between critical points in the care of women with ovarian cancer and determine the impact of patient demographics, Dr. LaFargue and his associates retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 45 women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer at Long Beach (Calif.) Memorial Medical Center between January 2012 and May 2015.

They examined patient demographics, including preoperative CA-125. Time points of interest were first concerning imaging test, first gynecologic oncology appointment, initiation of treatment, and adjuvant therapy. They used univariate analyses to determine associations between specific patient demographics and the time intervals of interest.

Dr. LaFargue, a resident in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Irvine, reported that the mean age of patients was 61 years, and the mean driving distance to the hospital from the patients’ home was 11 miles. More than half of the patients were white (58%) and 62% of patients were diagnosed with stage III or IV disease. Preoperative CA-125 exceeded 200 U/mL in 62% of patients. Medicare enrollees with supplemental insurance made up less than half of the group (44%).

The researchers found that the average time from initial concerning imaging to start of treatment was about 38 days. The average time from initial imaging to the first office visit with a gynecologic oncologist was about 18 days. The time from that appointment to initial treatment was 19 days, on average. The time from the start of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to interval cytoreductive surgery was 103 days, on average.

The only factor that significantly impacted transit time was a patient’s CA-125 level. Those who had a level of 200 U/mL or greater were more likely to receive surgery or treatment quicker, compared with those who had a CA-125 level less than 200 U/mL. No other statistically significant associations between patient demographics and length of time intervals were observed.

“It would have been nice to have seen a correlation with insurance status,” Dr. LaFargue said. “That’s kind of what we were hoping for, because then you can make an argument with insurance payers that patients who have Medicare aren’t getting treated as quickly as those who have a PPO, for example.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size, lack of outcomes data, and the fact that it was conducted in a community hospital setting.

Dr. LaFargue reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – The survival impact of resecting the primary tumor in women with de novo stage IV breast cancer depends on receipt of and response to prior systemic therapy, suggested a pair of studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A randomized trial conducted in Turkey found that, relative to peers who received initial systemic therapy, women who underwent initial resection of the primary tumor had a one-third lower risk of death at 5 years. But a prospective registry study conducted in the United States found that elective resection after a response to first-line therapy did not significantly improve overall survival, with patients living roughly 6 years regardless of whether they had the surgery or not.

Findings in context

“I think these studies have just confirmed what we know, and that is that tumor biology is critical,” said invited discussant Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Patients who do not respond to systemic therapy will do poorly, so I don’t think it’s unwise to consider a biologic ‘stress test’ with initiation of first-line therapy, knowing that patients who do not respond will not benefit from surgery.”

Those with hormone receptor–positive or HER2-positive disease are most likely to benefit from targeted therapy and may see even higher response rates as novel targeted agents are introduced. “But despite the increase in response to therapy, we really have no data at this time to suggest any benefit from surgery,” she added. “There may be some utility in continuing to enroll these patients in a clinical trial. I would suggest that it would need to be a subtype-specific trial and would question whether we have the appetite to conduct such a study.”

More information on managing de novo stage IV breast cancer is expected from ongoing trials such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group’s 2108 trial, which is randomizing patients having a response or stable disease with first-line therapy to either early local therapy or delayed local therapy only at the time of progression, according to Dr. Mittendorf.

Poor accrual necessitated redesign of the trial. “As part of that redesign, there was a decrease in the target enrollment, which causes me concern that the trial will not be powered to inform its primary endpoint of overall survival,” she commented. However, “it’s interesting to note that in early 2014, shortly after the report of the trials from India and Turkey at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, there was a significant increase in enrollment, suggesting that this is a clinically important question.”

Turkish study: MF07-01

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The first study – trial MF07-01 of the Turkish Federation of Breast Diseases Societies – was presented by Atilla Soran, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

He and his colleagues enrolled in the trial women with de novo stage IV breast cancer whose primary tumor was amenable to complete surgical resection and who were healthy enough to be treated.

The women were randomized evenly either to initial systemic therapy followed by local therapy only if local progression occurred, or to initial local therapy, consisting of surgery with or without radiation therapy of the breast and axilla, followed by systemic therapy.

Among the 274 evaluable women having a median follow-up of about 40 months, the 3-year rate of overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups, Dr. Soran reported.

However, the 5-year rate of overall survival was 41.6% in the initial surgery group and 24.4% in the initial systemic therapy group, a difference translating to a significant reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .005). Median survival was 46 months and 37 months, respectively.

The benefit was similar in women whose tumors had hormone receptors, whose tumors were negative for HER2, and who were younger than age 55. There was no significant benefit of up-front surgery for women with bone-only metastases, “but we believe that when we follow these patients longer, the difference is going to be statistically significant,” he said.

On the other hand, there was a trend among women who had multiple pulmonary and/or liver metastases whereby they were more likely to die if they initially had surgery instead of systemic therapy.

Locoregional progression/relapse occurred in 1% of the initial surgery group but 11% of the initial systemic therapy group. Among women who did not have locoregional progression/relapse, surgery still had a survival benefit (HR, 0.61; P = .001).

“We know that with systemic therapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy, and imaging as developments, patients are living longer when you compare to a decade ago or 20 years ago,” said Dr. Soran. “But we also believe that there is a role for surgery of the primary tumor in those patients.”

“Performance status, age, and comorbidities must be taken into account, and the burden of metastatic disease needs to be considered,” he maintained. “The benefit of surgery at presentation is dependent on the completeness of resection, and axillary surgery and locoregional radiation therapy should be considered regardless of the metastasis.”

U.S. study: TBCRC 013

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The second study – the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium’s study 013 – was presented by Tari A. King, MD, chief of breast surgery at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, associate division chief for breast surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, all in Boston.

The investigators analyzed data from the study’s cohort A, consisting of 112 patients with de novo stage IV breast cancer who had an intact primary tumor. All patients were given first-line systemic therapy; those who had a response were additionally offered elective resection of their primary tumor.

The median duration of follow-up was 54 months. Overall, 85% of the women had a response to their first-line therapy, Dr. King reported.

Some 43% of responders opted to undergo elective surgery to resect their primary tumor, defined as surgery performed in the absence of local symptoms or the need for local control, with specific type and extent left up to the treating physician.

In a multivariate analysis among responders surviving at least 6 months, median survival was 71 months with elective surgery and 65 months without it, a nonsignificant difference.

Findings were similar among subsets of women having estrogen receptor–positive tumors or HER2-positive tumors, and various combinations of these features.

In recursive partitioning analysis, response to first-line therapy, HER2 status, and age were the major determinants of survival.

“Importantly, although we were not able to demonstrate a survival benefit with the use of surgery, surgery also did not impact progression-free survival,” noted Dr. King.

Ultimately, 4% of responders who did not have elective surgery and 18% of nonresponders went on to have palliative resection of their primary.

“As this was a registry study, patients selected for surgery were more likely to have single-organ metastatic disease and to have received first-line chemotherapy, yet despite this selection bias, surgery did not impact survival in any tumor subtype,” Dr. King summarized. “Among patients who responded to therapy, HER2 status and patient age remained strong prognostic factors. Further investigation is needed to determine if subsets of patients will ultimately benefit from surgery.”

“In the absence of additional prospective data, our findings do not support surgery for the primary tumor outside of a clinical trial,” she concluded.

CHICAGO – The survival impact of resecting the primary tumor in women with de novo stage IV breast cancer depends on receipt of and response to prior systemic therapy, suggested a pair of studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A randomized trial conducted in Turkey found that, relative to peers who received initial systemic therapy, women who underwent initial resection of the primary tumor had a one-third lower risk of death at 5 years. But a prospective registry study conducted in the United States found that elective resection after a response to first-line therapy did not significantly improve overall survival, with patients living roughly 6 years regardless of whether they had the surgery or not.

Findings in context

“I think these studies have just confirmed what we know, and that is that tumor biology is critical,” said invited discussant Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Patients who do not respond to systemic therapy will do poorly, so I don’t think it’s unwise to consider a biologic ‘stress test’ with initiation of first-line therapy, knowing that patients who do not respond will not benefit from surgery.”

Those with hormone receptor–positive or HER2-positive disease are most likely to benefit from targeted therapy and may see even higher response rates as novel targeted agents are introduced. “But despite the increase in response to therapy, we really have no data at this time to suggest any benefit from surgery,” she added. “There may be some utility in continuing to enroll these patients in a clinical trial. I would suggest that it would need to be a subtype-specific trial and would question whether we have the appetite to conduct such a study.”

More information on managing de novo stage IV breast cancer is expected from ongoing trials such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group’s 2108 trial, which is randomizing patients having a response or stable disease with first-line therapy to either early local therapy or delayed local therapy only at the time of progression, according to Dr. Mittendorf.

Poor accrual necessitated redesign of the trial. “As part of that redesign, there was a decrease in the target enrollment, which causes me concern that the trial will not be powered to inform its primary endpoint of overall survival,” she commented. However, “it’s interesting to note that in early 2014, shortly after the report of the trials from India and Turkey at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, there was a significant increase in enrollment, suggesting that this is a clinically important question.”

Turkish study: MF07-01

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The first study – trial MF07-01 of the Turkish Federation of Breast Diseases Societies – was presented by Atilla Soran, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

He and his colleagues enrolled in the trial women with de novo stage IV breast cancer whose primary tumor was amenable to complete surgical resection and who were healthy enough to be treated.

The women were randomized evenly either to initial systemic therapy followed by local therapy only if local progression occurred, or to initial local therapy, consisting of surgery with or without radiation therapy of the breast and axilla, followed by systemic therapy.

Among the 274 evaluable women having a median follow-up of about 40 months, the 3-year rate of overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups, Dr. Soran reported.

However, the 5-year rate of overall survival was 41.6% in the initial surgery group and 24.4% in the initial systemic therapy group, a difference translating to a significant reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .005). Median survival was 46 months and 37 months, respectively.

The benefit was similar in women whose tumors had hormone receptors, whose tumors were negative for HER2, and who were younger than age 55. There was no significant benefit of up-front surgery for women with bone-only metastases, “but we believe that when we follow these patients longer, the difference is going to be statistically significant,” he said.

On the other hand, there was a trend among women who had multiple pulmonary and/or liver metastases whereby they were more likely to die if they initially had surgery instead of systemic therapy.

Locoregional progression/relapse occurred in 1% of the initial surgery group but 11% of the initial systemic therapy group. Among women who did not have locoregional progression/relapse, surgery still had a survival benefit (HR, 0.61; P = .001).

“We know that with systemic therapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy, and imaging as developments, patients are living longer when you compare to a decade ago or 20 years ago,” said Dr. Soran. “But we also believe that there is a role for surgery of the primary tumor in those patients.”

“Performance status, age, and comorbidities must be taken into account, and the burden of metastatic disease needs to be considered,” he maintained. “The benefit of surgery at presentation is dependent on the completeness of resection, and axillary surgery and locoregional radiation therapy should be considered regardless of the metastasis.”

U.S. study: TBCRC 013

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The second study – the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium’s study 013 – was presented by Tari A. King, MD, chief of breast surgery at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, associate division chief for breast surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, all in Boston.

The investigators analyzed data from the study’s cohort A, consisting of 112 patients with de novo stage IV breast cancer who had an intact primary tumor. All patients were given first-line systemic therapy; those who had a response were additionally offered elective resection of their primary tumor.

The median duration of follow-up was 54 months. Overall, 85% of the women had a response to their first-line therapy, Dr. King reported.

Some 43% of responders opted to undergo elective surgery to resect their primary tumor, defined as surgery performed in the absence of local symptoms or the need for local control, with specific type and extent left up to the treating physician.

In a multivariate analysis among responders surviving at least 6 months, median survival was 71 months with elective surgery and 65 months without it, a nonsignificant difference.

Findings were similar among subsets of women having estrogen receptor–positive tumors or HER2-positive tumors, and various combinations of these features.

In recursive partitioning analysis, response to first-line therapy, HER2 status, and age were the major determinants of survival.

“Importantly, although we were not able to demonstrate a survival benefit with the use of surgery, surgery also did not impact progression-free survival,” noted Dr. King.

Ultimately, 4% of responders who did not have elective surgery and 18% of nonresponders went on to have palliative resection of their primary.

“As this was a registry study, patients selected for surgery were more likely to have single-organ metastatic disease and to have received first-line chemotherapy, yet despite this selection bias, surgery did not impact survival in any tumor subtype,” Dr. King summarized. “Among patients who responded to therapy, HER2 status and patient age remained strong prognostic factors. Further investigation is needed to determine if subsets of patients will ultimately benefit from surgery.”

“In the absence of additional prospective data, our findings do not support surgery for the primary tumor outside of a clinical trial,” she concluded.

CHICAGO – The survival impact of resecting the primary tumor in women with de novo stage IV breast cancer depends on receipt of and response to prior systemic therapy, suggested a pair of studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A randomized trial conducted in Turkey found that, relative to peers who received initial systemic therapy, women who underwent initial resection of the primary tumor had a one-third lower risk of death at 5 years. But a prospective registry study conducted in the United States found that elective resection after a response to first-line therapy did not significantly improve overall survival, with patients living roughly 6 years regardless of whether they had the surgery or not.

Findings in context

“I think these studies have just confirmed what we know, and that is that tumor biology is critical,” said invited discussant Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD, PhD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “Patients who do not respond to systemic therapy will do poorly, so I don’t think it’s unwise to consider a biologic ‘stress test’ with initiation of first-line therapy, knowing that patients who do not respond will not benefit from surgery.”

Those with hormone receptor–positive or HER2-positive disease are most likely to benefit from targeted therapy and may see even higher response rates as novel targeted agents are introduced. “But despite the increase in response to therapy, we really have no data at this time to suggest any benefit from surgery,” she added. “There may be some utility in continuing to enroll these patients in a clinical trial. I would suggest that it would need to be a subtype-specific trial and would question whether we have the appetite to conduct such a study.”

More information on managing de novo stage IV breast cancer is expected from ongoing trials such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group’s 2108 trial, which is randomizing patients having a response or stable disease with first-line therapy to either early local therapy or delayed local therapy only at the time of progression, according to Dr. Mittendorf.

Poor accrual necessitated redesign of the trial. “As part of that redesign, there was a decrease in the target enrollment, which causes me concern that the trial will not be powered to inform its primary endpoint of overall survival,” she commented. However, “it’s interesting to note that in early 2014, shortly after the report of the trials from India and Turkey at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, there was a significant increase in enrollment, suggesting that this is a clinically important question.”

Turkish study: MF07-01

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The first study – trial MF07-01 of the Turkish Federation of Breast Diseases Societies – was presented by Atilla Soran, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

He and his colleagues enrolled in the trial women with de novo stage IV breast cancer whose primary tumor was amenable to complete surgical resection and who were healthy enough to be treated.

The women were randomized evenly either to initial systemic therapy followed by local therapy only if local progression occurred, or to initial local therapy, consisting of surgery with or without radiation therapy of the breast and axilla, followed by systemic therapy.

Among the 274 evaluable women having a median follow-up of about 40 months, the 3-year rate of overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups, Dr. Soran reported.

However, the 5-year rate of overall survival was 41.6% in the initial surgery group and 24.4% in the initial systemic therapy group, a difference translating to a significant reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .005). Median survival was 46 months and 37 months, respectively.

The benefit was similar in women whose tumors had hormone receptors, whose tumors were negative for HER2, and who were younger than age 55. There was no significant benefit of up-front surgery for women with bone-only metastases, “but we believe that when we follow these patients longer, the difference is going to be statistically significant,” he said.

On the other hand, there was a trend among women who had multiple pulmonary and/or liver metastases whereby they were more likely to die if they initially had surgery instead of systemic therapy.

Locoregional progression/relapse occurred in 1% of the initial surgery group but 11% of the initial systemic therapy group. Among women who did not have locoregional progression/relapse, surgery still had a survival benefit (HR, 0.61; P = .001).

“We know that with systemic therapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy, and imaging as developments, patients are living longer when you compare to a decade ago or 20 years ago,” said Dr. Soran. “But we also believe that there is a role for surgery of the primary tumor in those patients.”

“Performance status, age, and comorbidities must be taken into account, and the burden of metastatic disease needs to be considered,” he maintained. “The benefit of surgery at presentation is dependent on the completeness of resection, and axillary surgery and locoregional radiation therapy should be considered regardless of the metastasis.”

U.S. study: TBCRC 013

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The second study – the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium’s study 013 – was presented by Tari A. King, MD, chief of breast surgery at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, associate division chief for breast surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, all in Boston.

The investigators analyzed data from the study’s cohort A, consisting of 112 patients with de novo stage IV breast cancer who had an intact primary tumor. All patients were given first-line systemic therapy; those who had a response were additionally offered elective resection of their primary tumor.

The median duration of follow-up was 54 months. Overall, 85% of the women had a response to their first-line therapy, Dr. King reported.

Some 43% of responders opted to undergo elective surgery to resect their primary tumor, defined as surgery performed in the absence of local symptoms or the need for local control, with specific type and extent left up to the treating physician.

In a multivariate analysis among responders surviving at least 6 months, median survival was 71 months with elective surgery and 65 months without it, a nonsignificant difference.

Findings were similar among subsets of women having estrogen receptor–positive tumors or HER2-positive tumors, and various combinations of these features.

In recursive partitioning analysis, response to first-line therapy, HER2 status, and age were the major determinants of survival.

“Importantly, although we were not able to demonstrate a survival benefit with the use of surgery, surgery also did not impact progression-free survival,” noted Dr. King.

Ultimately, 4% of responders who did not have elective surgery and 18% of nonresponders went on to have palliative resection of their primary.

“As this was a registry study, patients selected for surgery were more likely to have single-organ metastatic disease and to have received first-line chemotherapy, yet despite this selection bias, surgery did not impact survival in any tumor subtype,” Dr. King summarized. “Among patients who responded to therapy, HER2 status and patient age remained strong prognostic factors. Further investigation is needed to determine if subsets of patients will ultimately benefit from surgery.”

“In the absence of additional prospective data, our findings do not support surgery for the primary tumor outside of a clinical trial,” she concluded.

Among patients with rectal cancer, delaying surgery for 11 weeks after the end of radiochemotherapy does not improve pathologic complete response rates, investigators reported.

Previously, the Lyon trial, the only randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of delaying surgery following the end of radiochemotherapy (RCT), found that compared with a 2-week delay, a 6-week delay significantly increased the number of patients who experienced complete response (53.1% vs. 71.7%, P = .007). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effect of a longer interval between RCT and surgery on pathologic complete response (pCR) rates.

For the phase III, multicenter, randomized trial, 265 patients with mid or lower rectal cancer were randomized to receive surgery at 7 weeks (n = 133) or 11 weeks (n = 132) following the end of RCT.

Baseline tumor characteristics and patient demographics were similar between the two study arms; the majority of patients had stage cT3 rectal cancer (82%).

There was no significant difference in pathologic complete response rate between the study arms (15% for 7-week group vs. 17.4% for 11-week group, P = .5983), reported Jeremie Lefevre, MD, of Hopital Saint-Antoine, Paris, and his associates (J Clin Oncol. 2016 July. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.6049).

Overall morbidity was significantly increased in the 11-week group (44.5% v 32%; P = .04), primarily explained by an increase in medical complications (32.8% vs. 19.2%; P = .01), the investigators wrote.

The French Ministry of Health funded the study. Dr. Lefevre and seven of his associates reported serving in advisory roles, receiving financial compensation, or participating in the speakers bureau for multiple companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Among patients with rectal cancer, delaying surgery for 11 weeks after the end of radiochemotherapy does not improve pathologic complete response rates, investigators reported.

Previously, the Lyon trial, the only randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of delaying surgery following the end of radiochemotherapy (RCT), found that compared with a 2-week delay, a 6-week delay significantly increased the number of patients who experienced complete response (53.1% vs. 71.7%, P = .007). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effect of a longer interval between RCT and surgery on pathologic complete response (pCR) rates.

For the phase III, multicenter, randomized trial, 265 patients with mid or lower rectal cancer were randomized to receive surgery at 7 weeks (n = 133) or 11 weeks (n = 132) following the end of RCT.

Baseline tumor characteristics and patient demographics were similar between the two study arms; the majority of patients had stage cT3 rectal cancer (82%).

There was no significant difference in pathologic complete response rate between the study arms (15% for 7-week group vs. 17.4% for 11-week group, P = .5983), reported Jeremie Lefevre, MD, of Hopital Saint-Antoine, Paris, and his associates (J Clin Oncol. 2016 July. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.6049).

Overall morbidity was significantly increased in the 11-week group (44.5% v 32%; P = .04), primarily explained by an increase in medical complications (32.8% vs. 19.2%; P = .01), the investigators wrote.

The French Ministry of Health funded the study. Dr. Lefevre and seven of his associates reported serving in advisory roles, receiving financial compensation, or participating in the speakers bureau for multiple companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Among patients with rectal cancer, delaying surgery for 11 weeks after the end of radiochemotherapy does not improve pathologic complete response rates, investigators reported.

Previously, the Lyon trial, the only randomized controlled study to investigate the effects of delaying surgery following the end of radiochemotherapy (RCT), found that compared with a 2-week delay, a 6-week delay significantly increased the number of patients who experienced complete response (53.1% vs. 71.7%, P = .007). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effect of a longer interval between RCT and surgery on pathologic complete response (pCR) rates.

For the phase III, multicenter, randomized trial, 265 patients with mid or lower rectal cancer were randomized to receive surgery at 7 weeks (n = 133) or 11 weeks (n = 132) following the end of RCT.

Baseline tumor characteristics and patient demographics were similar between the two study arms; the majority of patients had stage cT3 rectal cancer (82%).

There was no significant difference in pathologic complete response rate between the study arms (15% for 7-week group vs. 17.4% for 11-week group, P = .5983), reported Jeremie Lefevre, MD, of Hopital Saint-Antoine, Paris, and his associates (J Clin Oncol. 2016 July. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.6049).

Overall morbidity was significantly increased in the 11-week group (44.5% v 32%; P = .04), primarily explained by an increase in medical complications (32.8% vs. 19.2%; P = .01), the investigators wrote.

The French Ministry of Health funded the study. Dr. Lefevre and seven of his associates reported serving in advisory roles, receiving financial compensation, or participating in the speakers bureau for multiple companies.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig