Apsey, Heidi A.

PURPOSE Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have shown similar diagnostic performance in detection of breast cancer. Limited CEM data are available for high-risk breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to prospectively investigate the efficacy of supplemental screening CEM in elevated risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective, single-institution, institutional review board–approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic elevated risk women age 35 years or older who had a negative conventional two-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammography (MG) and no additional supplemental screening within the prior 12 months. RESULTS Four hundred sixty women were enrolled from February 2019 to April 2021. The median age was 56.8 (range, 35.0-79.2) years; 408 of 460 (88.7%) were mammographically dense. Biopsy revealed benign changes in 22 women (22/37, 59%), high-risk lesions in four women (4/37, 11%), and breast cancer in 11 women (11/37, 30%). Fourteen cancers (10 invasive, tumor size range 4-15 mm, median 9 mm) were diagnosed in 11 women. The overall supplemental cancer detection rate was 23.9 per 1,000 patients, 95% CI (12.0 to 42.4). All cancers were grade 1 or 2, ER+ ERBB2–, and node negative. CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.875 [95% CI, 0.844 to 0.906]), high NPV (0.998 [95% CI, 0.993 to 1.000), moderate PPV1 (0.164 [95% CI, 0.076 to 0.253), moderate PPV3 (0.275 [95% CI, 0.137 to 0.413]), and high sensitivity (0.917 [95% CI, 0.760 to 1.000]). At least 1 year of imaging follow-up was available on all patients, and one interval cancer was detected on breast MRI 4 months after negative screening CEM. CONCLUSION A pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 23.9 per 1,000 in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. Larger, multi-institutional, multiyear CEM trials in patients at elevated risk are needed for validation.

10541 Background: Biomechanical tissue properties may vary in the breasts of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. We aim to quantify in vivo biomechanical tissue properties in various breast densities and in both normal risk and high risk women using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)/MRE and examine the association of biomechanical properties of the breast with cancer risk. Methods: In this IRB–approved prospective single-institution study, we recruited two groups of women differing by breast cancer risk to undergo a 3.0 T dynamic contrast enhanced MRI/MRE of the breast. Low-average risk women were defined as having no personal or significant family history of breast cancer, no prior high risk breast biopsies and a negative mammography within 12 months. High-risk breast cancer patients were recruited from those patients who underwent standard of care breast MR. Within each breast density group (non-dense versus dense), two-sample t-tests were used to compare breast stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity across risk groups (low-average vs high). Results: There were 50 low-average risk and 86 high-risk patients recruited to the study. The risk groups were similar on age (mean age = 55.6 and 53.6 years), density (68% vs. 64% dense breasts) and menopausal status (66.0% vs. 69.8%). Among patients with dense breasts, mean stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were significantly higher in high risk patients ( N = 55) compared to low-average risk patients ( N = 34; all p < 0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression model, breast stiffness remained a significant predictor of risk status (OR=4.26, 95% CI [1.96, 9.25]) even after controlling for breast density, MRI BPE, age, and menopausal status. Similar results were seen for breast elasticity (OR=4.88, 95% CI [2.08, 11.43]) and viscosity (OR=11.49, 95% CI [1.15, 114.89]). Conclusions: Structurally-based, quantitative biomarker of tissue stiffness obtained from global 3D breast MRE is associated with differences in breast cancer risk in dense breasts. As such, tissue stiffness could provide a novel prognostic marker to help identify the subset of high-risk women with dense breasts who would benefit from increased surveillance.[Table: see text]

Abstract Objective and Rationale: To investigate the utility of screening Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) imaging as a supplemental screening tool in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This prospective, single institution, IRB approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic women 35 years of age or older who were deemed at elevated risk of breast cancer, defined as IBIS v.8.0 lifetime risk of breast cancer score &gt;15% or a prior personal history of breast cancer. Enrollment started in January 2019 and is on-going. An interim data analysis was performed. Women were invited to undergo supplemental CEM screening within 180 days of negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2) conventional 2D/3D screening mammography (MG). Patients with prior screening MBI, ultrasound or MR imaging within 12 months were excluded from study participation. Outcome measures were supplemental cancer detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CEM, along with their 95% confidence intervals, as well as the biologic profiles of MG-occult, CEM detected cancers. Results: A total of 351 women were enrolled in this prospective study over a 20-month period. To date, we have 1 year follow up on 106 cases with negative follow-up MG. Average age of the participants was 56 years ± 9.44 (standard deviation); 11 patients had screening 2D MG, 333 had combined 3-D and 2-D screening MG; 309 dense and 37 non-dense breasts based on ACR BI-RADS categories. CEM depicted 8 additional breast cancers (table 1), which were otherwise MG occult, for an overall supplemental cancer detection rate of 22.7 per 1000 patients, 95% CI (9.9, 44.3). 1 false negative cancer on CEM imaging which was further detected on MR imaging only. Biopsy revealed 16 benign changes (16/28=57%), 4 high-risk lesions (4/28=14%), and 8 breast cancers (8/28=29%) (table 2). CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.942, 95% CI (0.917, 0.967), high NPV 0.997, 95% CI (0.991, 1.000) and moderate PPV (0.286, 95% CI (0.118, 0.453) and sensitivity (0.889, 95% CI (0.684, 1.000)). Size of CEM detected cancers ranged from 7 to 57 mm. Conclusion: This pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 22.7 per 1000 during prevalence round of CEM screening in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. These initial results are comparable to results reported for high-risk surveillance MR imaging. Larger, multi-institutional high-risk CEM trials are needed for those patients who are not otherwise undergoing regular supplemental surveillance MR imaging. Citation Format: Bhavika K. Patel, Victor Pizzitola, Donald Northfelt, Karen Anderson, Marina Giurescu, Gina Mazza, Roxanne Lorans, William Eversman, Richard Sharpe, Juliana Kling, Denise Millstine, Ernst Brenda, Patricia Cronin, Heidi Apsey, Jennifer Palmieri, Barbara Pockaj, Michele Halyard. Supplemental contrast enhanced mammography screening of women with elevated risk of breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS2-41.

623 Background: Neoadjuvant therapy plays an important role in breast cancer treatment. Unlike patients who undergo surgery followed by adjuvant therapy,there are no established guidelines for surgical management following neoadjuvant therapy. Methods: Surgical practice patterns from 50 patients in N0338 “Phase II trial of Docetaxel and Carboplatin administered every two weeks as induction therapy for Stage II and Stage III breast cancer” were reviewed. The protocol did not mandate surgical therapy leaving the decision to the treating surgeon and patient. Results: 66% of patients underwent mastectomy (M) and 33% underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT). Three (9%) had immediate reconstruction. Eight (24%) underwent contralateral prophylactic M. Residual tumor size did not always impact primary surgical therapy. In the M group 4 (12%) had no residual disease, 15 (45%) < 2cm and 14 (42%) > 2cm; whereas, in the BCT group 1 (6%) had no residual disease, 12 (70%) < 2cm and 4 (24%) > 2cm. Axillary lymph node (ALN) staging varied tremendously. Three (6%) patients presented with palpable lymphadenopathy and proceeded to complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after chemotherapy (CT). Fine needle aspiration (8) or core needle biopsy (7) of the axilla was performed in 15 (30%) patients before CT; 1 was negative and went on to have sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after CT; 14 (94%) were positive with 13 (86%) going on to ALND and 1 SLNB after CT. Five (10%) underwent SLNB prior to CT. One (20%) was positive and went on to have ALND after CT; 4 (8%) were negative and had no further ALN staging. A total of 19 (39%) had SLNB after neoadjuvant therapy; 13 (68%) were positive and underwent ALND; 1 SLNB failed; 2 of 5 that were negative underwent ALND with 1 having a positive lymph node. Ten (20%) underwent ALND with no pre-operative staging with 8 being positive for ALN metastases. Conclusions: Review of study data from multiple institutions revealed no consistent criteria in selection of surgical intervention for the breast tumor or ALN staging. There remains a need for further research in this area to establish standard practice guidelines. Support from NIH, sanofi-aventis, Amgen, Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Objective: Our objective was to assess the application of insulin regimens in surgical postoperative patients with diabetes. Methods: A chart review was conducted of patients with diabetes who were hospitalized postoperatively between January 1 and April 30, 2011. Analysis was restricted to patients hospitalized for ≥3 days and excluded cases with an endocrinology consult. Insulin regimens were categorized as “basal plus short acting,” “short acting only,” or “none,” and the pattern of use was evaluated by hyperglycemia severity according to tertiles of both mean glucose and the number of glucose measurements >180 mg/dl. Results: Among cases selected for analysis ( n = 119), examination of changes in insulin use based on tertiles of mean glucose showed that use of basal plus short-acting insulin increased from 10% in the lowest tertile (mean glucose, 120 mg/dl) to 18% in the highest tertile (mean glucose, 198 mg/dl; p < .01); however, 70% of patients in the highest tertile continued to receive short-acting insulin only, with 12% receiving no insulin. Intensification of insulin to a basal plus short-acting regimen was also seen when changes were evaluated by the number of measurements >180 mg/dl ( p < .01), but 70% and 12% of patients in the highest tertile still remained only on short-acting insulin or received no insulin, respectively. Conclusions: Use of basal plus short-acting insulin therapy increased with worsening hyperglycemia, but many cases did not have therapy intensified to the recommended insulin regimen—evidence of clinical inertia. Strategies should be devised to overcome inpatient clinical inertia in the treatment of postoperative patients with diabetes.

Objective: The objective of the analysis was to review the effectiveness of a care process model (CPM) developed to guide management of patients on insulin pump therapy undergoing elective surgical procedures. Methods: Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess the impact of the CPM on documentation of insulin pump status, glucose monitoring, and safety during the perioperative phase of care. Post-CPM care was compared with management provided before CPM implementation. Results: We reviewed 45 cases on insulin pump therapy in the pre-CPM cohort and 106 in the post-CPM cohort. Demographic characteristics, categories of surgery, and perioperative times were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Recommended hemoglobin A1c monitoring occurred in 73% of cases in the pre-CPM cohort but improved to 94% in the post-CPM group ( P < .01). There was a higher frequency of documentation of the insulin pump during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postanesthesia care unit segments of care in the post- vs pre-CPM periods (all P < .01). The number of cases with intraoperative glucose monitoring increased (57% pre-CPM vs 81% post-CPM; P < .01). Glycemic control was comparable between the 2 CPM periods. Hypoglycemia was rare, with only 3 episodes in the pre-CPM group and 4 in the post-CPM. No adverse events associated with perioperative insulin pump use were observed. Conclusions: This analysis adds to previous data on use of insulin pump therapy during the perioperative period. Some processes require additional attention, but data continue to indicate that a standardized approach to care can lead to a successful and safe transition of insulin pump therapy throughout the perioperative period.

Case reports indicate that diabetes patients receiving outpatient insulin pump therapy have been allowed to continue treatment during surgical procedures. Although allowed during surgery, there is actually little information in the medical literature on how to manage patients receiving insulin pump therapy during a planned surgical procedure. A multidisciplinary work group reviewed current information regarding the use of insulin pumps in the perioperative period. Although the work group identified safety issues specific to surgical scenarios, it believed that with the use of standardized guidelines and a checklist, continuation of insulin pump therapy during the perioperative period is feasible. A sample set of protocols have been developed and are summarized. A policy outlining clear procedures should be established at the institutional level to guide physicians and other staf if the devices are to be employed during the perioperative period. Additional clinical experience with the technology in surgical scenarios is needed, and consensus should be developed for insulin pump use in the perioperative phases of care.