RESUMEN
PHENOMENON: Marginalized individuals in medicine face many structural inequities which can have enduring consequences on their progress. Therefore, inequity must be addressed by dismantling underlying unjust policies, environments, and curricula. However, once these injustices have been taken apart, how do we build more just systems from the rubble? Many current strategies to address this question have foundational values of urgency, solutionism, and top-down leadership. APPROACH: This paper explores a counternarrative: Design Justice. As a set of guiding principles, Design Justice centers the experiences and perspectives of marginalized individuals and communities. These principles include mutual accountability and transparency, co-ownership, and community-led outcomes, and honoring local, traditional, Indigenous knowledge. FINDINGS: Rooted in critical scholarship and critical design, Design Justice recognizes the interconnectedness of various forms of marginalization and works to critically examine power dynamics that exist in every design process. These co-created principles act as practical guardrails, directing progress toward justice. INSIGHTS: This paper begins with an overview of Design Justice's history in critical scholarship and critical design, providing foundational background knowledge for medical educators, scholars, and leaders in key concepts of justice and design. We explore how the Design Justice principles were developed and have been applied across sectors, highlighting its applications, including education applications. Finally, we raise critical questions about medical education prompted by Design Justice.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Germline genetic mutations in women with phyllodes tumors (PT) are understudied, although some describe associations of PT with various mutations. We sought to determine the prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in women with PT. METHODS: A 6-site multi-center study of women with a PT was initiated, then expanded nationally through an online "Phyllodes Support Group." All women underwent 84-gene panel testing. We defined eligibility for testing based on select NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) criteria (v1.2022). Logistic regression was used to estimate the association of covariates with the likelihood of a P/LP variant. RESULTS: 274 women were enrolled: 164 (59.9%) through multi-center recruitment and 110 (40.1%) via online recruitment. 248 women completed testing; overall 14.1% (N = 35) had a P/LP variant, and over half (N = 19) of these individuals had a mutation in genes associated with autosomal dominant (AD) cancer conditions. The most common AD genes with a P/LP variant included CHEK2, ATM, and RAD51D. A quarter of participants (23.8%) met NCCN criteria for testing, but we found no difference in prevalence of a P/LP variant based on eligibility (p = 0.54). After adjustment, the presence of P/LP variants was not associated with age, NCCN testing eligibility, or PT type (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that 7.7% of women with PT harbor germline P/LP variants in genes associated with AD cancer conditions. Early identification of these variants has implications for screening, risk reduction, and/or treatment. National guidelines for women with PT do not currently address germline genetic testing, which could be considered.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Pruebas Genéticas , Mutación de Línea Germinal , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama/genética , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico , Femenino , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Pruebas Genéticas/normas , Pruebas Genéticas/métodos , Predisposición Genética a la Enfermedad , PronósticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is increasingly omitted for breast cancer patients with pathologic nodal disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). This study aimed to understand when and why surgeons consider omitting ALND after NAC. METHODS: The American Society of Breast Surgeons membership was surveyed, and responses were tabulated. To identify patterns, multiple correspondence analyses followed by cluster analysis on coordinates provided by the former were performed. Chi-squared analyses determined whether cluster characteristics were significantly (P < 0.05) associated with omission of ALND. RESULTS: Of members, 328/2172 (15.1%) completed the survey. Most (60.7%) always offer sentinel lymph node surgery to cN1 patients who respond to NAC, and many (43.9%) sometimes omit ALND in the setting of residual nodal disease. Respondents less often consider omitting ALND with increasing volume of pathologic nodal disease after NAC and are less likely to omit ALND among patients with cN1 disease at presentation than cN0 (P < 0.05 across all volumes). Respondents cited radiation administration (74.1%) and belief that ALND would not improve locoregional (48.2%), distant recurrence or survival (47.6%) outcomes when axillary radiation is administered as reasons to omit ALND. The respondent group comprising male private practice surgeons, practicing ≥ 21 years, consider omitting ALND significantly more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons sometimes consider ALND omission for patients with pathologic nodal disease after NAC but are more likely to do so in cN0 patients and patients with smaller volumes of nodal disease. These decisions are largely based on perceived lack of oncologic benefit despite absence of prospective data supporting this deescalation.
RESUMEN
Following the survival benefit demonstrated in the OlympiA trial, one year of adjuvant olaparib is now recommended for all patients with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV) and high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer after chemotherapy. However, optimal identification of high-risk patients who may derive benefit from this genomically-directed therapy is debated. In this study, we sought to characterize the real-world proportion of gBRCA1/2 PV carriers eligible for adjuvant olaparib according to the OlympiA criteria, and to compare clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes between eligible and ineligible patients.
RESUMEN
Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) was initially reserved for unresectable patients however it has been increasingly used to facilitate breast conservation, downstage the axilla, and inform adjuvant therapy decisions based on response. For patients with HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), clinical trials have resulted in the ability to individualize treatment regimens. For HER2+ breast cancer, de-escalation of neoadjuvant regimens to minimize cytotoxic chemotherapy and de-escalation or escalation of adjuvant regimens based on response have been effective. For TNBC, the approval of the combination of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting has resulted in a major practice shift and opened the door to many additional treatment questions including de-escalation of the chemotherapy backbone or the adjuvant regimen. For both HER2+ and TNBC, most patients are treated with NST except those with very small tumors. Efforts are also being made to optimally identify patients with T1c tumors who may benefit from more aggressive NST. For patients treated according to or enrolled in NST de-escalation trials, breast conservation (even those who become eligible based on response to NST) and sentinel lymph node biopsy when cN0 at the completion of NST are safe and feasible. Continued involvement of surgeons and multidisciplinary teams in the design and reporting of trials will streamline their adoption into clinical practice. Surgeons need to remain aware of ongoing systemic therapy trials to appropriately select patients for NST and plan for appropriate post-neoadjuvant surgical care.
Asunto(s)
Terapia Neoadyuvante , Receptor ErbB-2 , Neoplasias de la Mama Triple Negativas , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama Triple Negativas/patología , Neoplasias de la Mama Triple Negativas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Mama Triple Negativas/terapia , Terapia Neoadyuvante/métodos , Femenino , Receptor ErbB-2/metabolismo , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Mama/terapia , Quimioterapia Adyuvante/métodos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
PROBLEM: Workplace mistreatment is a contributor to resident burnout; understanding and intervening against mistreatment is one key tool in mitigating burnout. While Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) survey data alerts programs to general mistreatment trends, those data are not detailed enough to inform local interventions. Our team designed and implemented a Challenging Interactions Reporting Tool (CIRT) to characterize the experiences of our trainees at a granular level and to inform targeted interventions for improvement. APPROACH: Our CIRT was offered to 158 residents in August 2020 via REDCap. Residents submit electronic reports that are reviewed weekly by program leaders who develop action plans for each report. Reporters can identify themselves or can choose to remain anonymous. When "hot spots" for mistreatment are identified in our hospital, we implement a targeted systems-level intervention. OUTCOMES: Residents filed 275 reports between August 2020 and December 2022. Reports represented all training environments and involved all interprofessional members of clinical teams. Residents reported awareness of, use of, and satisfaction with the tool. NEXT STEPS: Our program created the CIRT as a tool to inform local interventions for improving the safety of our clinical learning environment. We continue to disseminate our tool across our hospital's GME programs and are now measuring the impact of our interventions.
Asunto(s)
Agotamiento Profesional , Internado y Residencia , Humanos , Agotamiento Profesional/prevención & control , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/métodos , Relaciones Interprofesionales , Pediatría/educación , Lugar de Trabajo , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Importance: Observational studies of survivors of breast cancer and prospective trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease suggest improved breast cancer survival among aspirin users, but prospective studies of aspirin to prevent breast cancer recurrence are lacking. Objective: To determine whether aspirin decreases the risk of invasive cancer events among survivors of breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A011502, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in the United States and Canada with 3020 participants who had high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, enrolled participants from 534 sites from January 6, 2017, through December 4, 2020, with follow-up to March 4, 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomized (stratified for hormone receptor status [positive vs negative], body mass index [≤30 vs >30], stage II vs III, and time since diagnosis [<18 vs ≥18 months]) to receive 300 mg of aspirin (n = 1510) or placebo once daily (n = 1510) for 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary outcome. Results: A total of 3020 participants were randomized when the data and safety monitoring committee recommended suspending the study at the first interim analysis because the hazard ratio had crossed the prespecified futility bound. By median follow-up of 33.8 months (range, 0.1-72.6 months), 253 invasive disease-free survival events were observed (141 in the aspirin group and 112 in the placebo group), yielding a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63; P = .06). All invasive disease-free survival events, including death, invasive progression (both distant and locoregional), and new primary events, were numerically higher in the aspirin group, although the differences were not statistically significant. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Rates of grades 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both groups. Conclusion and Relevance: Among participants with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, daily aspirin therapy did not improve risk of breast cancer recurrence or survival in early follow-up. Despite its promise and wide availability, aspirin should not be recommended as an adjuvant breast cancer treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02927249.
Asunto(s)
Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos , Aspirina , Neoplasias de la Mama , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/administración & dosificación , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/efectos adversos , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/uso terapéutico , Aspirina/administración & dosificación , Aspirina/efectos adversos , Aspirina/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Mama/metabolismo , Neoplasias de la Mama/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Supervivientes de Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Quimioterapia Adyuvante , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Método Doble Ciego , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/epidemiología , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/prevención & control , Estudios de Seguimiento , Adulto Joven , Indio Americano o Nativo de Alaska/estadística & datos numéricos , Asiático/estadística & datos numéricos , Negro o Afroamericano/estadística & datos numéricos , Hispánicos o Latinos/estadística & datos numéricos , Nativos de Hawái y Otras Islas del Pacífico/estadística & datos numéricos , Blanco/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Canadá/epidemiología , Administración OralRESUMEN
Rates of contralateral mastectomy (CM) among patients with unilateral breast cancer have been increasing in the United States. In this Society of Surgical Oncology position statement, we review the literature addressing the indications, risks, and benefits of CM since the society's 2017 statement. We held a virtual meeting to outline key topics and then conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify relevant articles. We reviewed the articles and made recommendations based on group consensus. Patients consider CM for many reasons, including concerns regarding the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), desire for improved cosmesis and symmetry, and preferences to avoid ongoing screening, whereas surgeons primarily consider CBC risk when making a recommendation for CM. For patients with a high risk of CBC, CM reduces the risk of new breast cancer, however it is not known to convey an overall survival benefit. Studies evaluating patient satisfaction with CM and reconstruction have yielded mixed results. Imaging with mammography within 12 months before CM is recommended, but routine preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging is not; there is also no evidence to support routine postmastectomy imaging surveillance. Because the likelihood of identifying an occult malignancy during CM is low, routine sentinel lymph node surgery is not recommended. Data on the rates of postoperative complications are conflicting, and such complications may not be directly related to CM. Adjuvant therapy delays due to complications have not been reported. Surgeons can reduce CM rates by encouraging shared decision making and informed discussions incorporating patient preferences.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Oncología Quirúrgica , Neoplasias de Mama Unilaterales , Humanos , Femenino , Mastectomía/métodos , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Neoplasias de Mama Unilaterales/cirugía , Oncología MédicaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Reports evaluating plastic surgeons' practices indicate there are conflicting trends regarding the use of one or two drains for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Our study aimed to perform a matched cohort analysis to examine the postoperative outcomes and complications of immediate IBBR with tissue expander (TE) using two drains versus a single drain. METHODS: A propensity score-matched analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching) of immediate reconstructions using two versus one drain was conducted. Female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs between January 2011 and May 2021 were included. The covariables were as follows: BMI, mastectomy weight, lymph node surgery, TE surface, plane of reconstruction, use of acellular dermal matrix products, fluorescence imaging use, and intraoperative TE volume. RESULTS: After matching using propensity scores, 192 reconstructions were included in the final analysis: 96 in each group. The rate of 30-day complications and overall complications during the first phase of IBBR were comparable between groups. The time for drain removal, time to initiate and finalize expansions, and time for TE-to-implant exchange were comparable between groups. Diabetes (OR 3.74, p = 0.025) and an increased estimated blood loss (OR 1.004, p = 0.01) were the only independent predictors for seroma formation. CONCLUSION: In this matched cohort analysis evaluating the role of one versus two drains for two-stage IBBR, we found a comparable rate of complications and surgical outcomes between the two cohorts. Using two drains for immediate IBBR needs to be tailored depending on intraoperative findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
RESUMEN
Importance: Adding fulvestrant to anastrozole (A+F) improved survival in postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. However, the combination has not been tested in early-stage disease. Objective: To determine whether neoadjuvant fulvestrant or A+F increases the rate of pathologic complete response or ypT1-2N0/N1mic/Ki67 2.7% or less residual disease (referred to as endocrine-sensitive disease) over anastrozole alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing differences in clinical and correlative outcomes between each of the fulvestrant-containing arms and the anastrozole arm. Postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III, ER-rich (Allred score 6-8 or >66%)/ERBB2-negative breast cancer were included. All analyses were based on data frozen on March 2, 2023. Interventions: Patients received anastrozole, fulvestrant, or a combination for 6 months preoperatively. Tumor Ki67 was assessed at week 4 and optionally at week 12, and if greater than 10% at either time point, the patient switched to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or immediate surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the endocrine-sensitive disease rate (ESDR). A secondary outcome was the percentage change in Ki67 after 4 weeks of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) (week 4 Ki67 suppression). Results: Between February 2014 and November 2018, 1362 female patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [8.2] years) were enrolled. Among the 1298 evaluable patients, ESDRs were 18.7% (95% CI, 15.1%-22.7%), 22.8% (95% CI, 18.9%-27.1%), and 20.5% (95% CI, 16.8%-24.6%) with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Compared to anastrozole, neither fulvestrant-containing regimen significantly improved ESDR or week 4 Ki67 suppression. The rate of week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10% was 25.1%, 24.2%, and 15.7% with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Pathologic complete response/residual cancer burden class I occurred in 8 of 167 patients and 17 of 167 patients, respectively (15.0%; 95% CI, 9.9%-21.3%), after switching to neoadjuvant chemotherapy due to week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. PAM50 subtyping derived from RNA sequencing of baseline biopsies available for 753 patients (58%) identified 394 luminal A, 304 luminal B, and 55 nonluminal tumors. A+F led to a greater week 4 Ki67 suppression than anastrozole alone in luminal B tumors (median [IQR], -90.4% [-95.2 to -81.9%] vs -76.7% [-89.0 to -55.6%]; P < .001), but not luminal A tumors. Thirty-six nonluminal tumors (65.5%) had a week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither fulvestrant nor A+F significantly improved the 6-month ESDR over anastrozole in ER-rich/ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Aromatase inhibition remains the standard-of-care NET. Differential NET response by PAM50 subtype in exploratory analyses warrants further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Neoplasias de la Mama Triple Negativas , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Anastrozol/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Fulvestrant , Antígeno Ki-67 , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Nitrilos/efectos adversos , Posmenopausia , Receptor ErbB-2 , Receptores de Estrógenos , Triazoles/efectos adversos , Neoplasias de la Mama Triple Negativas/tratamiento farmacológico , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
Benign breast disease (BBD) is a heterogenous group of lesions often classified as nonproliferative or proliferative, with the latter group further categorized based on the presence of atypia. Although nonproliferative lesions are more common, the risk of breast cancer is elevated in women with proliferative lesions. Historically, the majority of proliferative lesions were excised due to concern for future and/or concomitant breast cancer at the site of the index lesion. However, contemporary data suggest that the risk of cancer associated with various proliferative lesions may be lower than previously thought, and management of BBD has become more nuanced. In this review, we will focus on recent updates in the management of a select group of benign and high-risk lesions.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Humanos , Femenino , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Enfermedades de la Mama/cirugía , Enfermedades de la Mama/patología , Mama/cirugía , Mama/patología , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Nodal status is an important prognostic indicator. Upfront axillary surgery for patients with breast cancer has historically been both diagnostic and therapeutic-serving to determine nodal status and inform adjuvant therapies, and to remove clinically significant disease. However, trials of de-escalation or omission of axillary surgery altogether consistently demonstrate noninferior oncologic outcomes in a wide variety of patient subsets. These strategies also reduce the morbidity associated with either sentinel lymphadenectomy or axillary lymph node dissection. Here we will briefly review landmark trials that have shaped upfront axillary surgery as well as recent advances, and discuss areas of ongoing investigation and future needs.
Asunto(s)
Axila , Neoplasias de la Mama , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático , Biopsia del Ganglio Linfático Centinela , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Femenino , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático/métodos , Metástasis Linfática/patología , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Ganglios Linfáticos/cirugía , PronósticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported the outcomes of LDF and immediate fat transfer (LIFT) during breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes and complications of LIFT and standard LDF (without immediate fat transfer) for breast reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts from patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction after total mastectomy between 2011 and 2021. We compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between groups. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen reconstructions (61.02%) were performed with LIFT, while seventy-six (38.98%) were performed with standard LDF. The median volume of total fat transferred during LIFT was 125-cc [110-170 âcc]. The rates of donor site wound disruption (23.7% versus 12.6%, p â= â0.044) were higher using the standard LDF compared to LIFT. Reconstructions performed with LIFT (HR 4.01, p â< â0.001) were found to be associated with secondary fat grafting procedures. CONCLUSION: LIFT is a safe procedure to enhance the volume of LDF in patients desiring autologous reconstruction without increasing recipient-site morbidity. On a time-to-event analysis, LIFT was associated with the requirement of further revision procedures using secondary fat grafting.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Mamoplastia , Músculos Superficiales de la Espalda , Humanos , Femenino , Mastectomía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Músculos Superficiales de la Espalda/trasplante , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Mamoplastia/métodos , Tejido Adiposo , Resultado del TratamientoAsunto(s)
Carcinoma in Situ , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante , Humanos , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante/cirugía , Carcinoma Intraductal no Infiltrante/patología , Carcinoma in Situ/patología , Metástasis Linfática , Invasividad Neoplásica , Estudios Retrospectivos , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/patologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with ERBB2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer experience high pathologic complete response (pCR) rates after standard neoadjuvant anti-HER2 systemic therapy. We examined axillary pathologic nodal response to neoadjuvant dual HER2-targeted therapy alone, based on breast pathologic response, in a multi-institution clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer were enrolled to a phase II single-arm trial, which administered 6 cycles of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus pertuzumab. Rates of pathologic nodal disease (ypN) in patients who were clinically node-negative (cN0) and node-positive (cN1) were analyzed, by residual breast disease (pCR and residual cancer burden [RCB] I to III). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-eight patients completed preoperative treatment and proceeded to surgery. Of 92 patients who were cN0, 48 (52.2%) and 10 (10.9%) experienced breast pCR and RCB I, respectively. Of these, 100% were ypN0. Of 34 with RCB II to III, 26 (76.5%) were ypN0. Of 30 patients who were cN1 with breast pCR, 100% were ypN0; of the 12 patients who were cN1 with RCB I, 66.7% were ypN0; and of the 24 patients who were cN1 with RCB II to III, 25% were ypN0. ypN0 rates were significantly different between patients who did and did not experience a pCR, in both cN0 (p = 0.002) and cN1 (p < 0.001) subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with dual HER2-targeted therapy who experienced a breast pCR or RCB I response were frequently ypN0. These findings support future trials considering omission of axillary surgical staging for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in neoadjuvant trials of active HER2-targeted regimens, particularly if they experience breast pCR or RCB I.