Purpose: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for approximately 15% of breast cancer cases and is associated with a poor prognosis. In this retrospective study of patients undergoing radiation therapy as part of their treatment, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of TNBC patients were examined in relation to clinical and treatmentrelated factors. Patients and Methods: The electronic records of 214 consecutive TNBC patients treated with surgery followed by radiotherapy at the Mid North Coast Cancer Institute between 2006 and 2016 were reviewed. Overall survival and DFS times were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method; multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression modelling was used to assess the significance of prognostic factors. Results: The majority of tumors were T1 (51.9%), followed by T2 (39.2%) and T3 (6.1%). For the whole group, mean DFS was 106.4 (SD 48.7) months; OS 109.4 (SD 52.1) months. Radiotherapy technique, fractionation protocol and laterality were not significant factors for DFS or OS (p>0.05). However, compared to breast conservation, mastectomy was associated with poorer DFS (mean 114.2 vs 65.2 months; p<0.0001) and poorer OS (mean 115.5 vs 80.5 months; p=0.0015). The mastectomy group had fewer patients with tumor size T1 (p=0.001) and higher proportions of T3 (p=0.001) and T4 (p=0.02). On multivariate analysis, tumor size T3/T4 and nodal status N2/N3 were significant factors for reduced DFS (p=0.023 and p=0.0003 respectively). Tumor size T3/T4 was the only significant prognostic factor for reduced OS (p=0.019). Conclusion: Advanced disease exhibited by tumor size > 5cm and positive nodal status is associated with poorer DFS in TNBC patients. Radiotherapy technique or fractionation protocol were not associated with differences in DFS or OS in our patient cohort.

Introduction: Decision regret (DR) may occur when a patient believes their outcome would have been better if they had decided differently about their management. Although some studies investigate DR after treatment for localised prostate cancer, none report DR in patients undergoing surgery and post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. We evaluated DR in this group of patients overall, and for specific components of therapy. Methods: We surveyed 83 patients, with minimum 5 years follow-up, treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and post-prostatectomy image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) to 64-66 Gy following www.EviQ.org.au protocols. A validated questionnaire identified DR if men either indicated that they would have been better off had they chosen another treatment, or they wished they could change their mind about treatment. Results: There was an 85.5% response rate, with median follow-up post-IMRT 78 months. Adjuvant IG-IMRT was used in 28% of patients, salvage in 72% and ADT in 48%. A total of 70% of patients remained disease-free. Overall, 16.9% of patients expressed DR for treatment, with fourfold more regret for the RP component of treatment compared to radiotherapy (16.9% vs 4.2%, P = 0.01). DR for androgen deprivation was 14.3%. Patients were regretful of surgery due to toxicity, not being adequately informed about radiotherapy as an alternative, positive margins and surgery costs (83%, 33%, 25% and 8% of regretful patients respectively). Toxicity caused DR in the three radiotherapy-regretful and four ADT-regretful patients. Patients were twice as regretful overall, and of surgery, for salvage vs adjuvant approaches (both 19.6% vs 10.0%). Conclusion: Decision regret after RP and post-prostatectomy IG-IMRT is uncommon, although patients regret RP more than post-operative IG-IMRT. This should reassure urologists referring patients for post-prostatectomy IG-IMRT, particularly in the immediate adjuvant setting. Other implications include appropriate patient selection for RP (and obtaining clear margins), and ensuring adequately discussing definitive radiotherapy as an alternative to surgery.

Summary A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘Does lung cancer screening with low-dose computerised tomography (LDCT) improve survival?’ More than 963 papers were found, of which 8 randomized control trials and 1 meta-analysis represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers were tabulated. The majority of studies trended towards greater incidence of early lung cancer detection, and subsequent curative treatment, in the LDCT screening populations with appropriately powered randomized control trials (NELSON and NLST) demonstrating survival benefits of &gt;20% in lung cancer-specific mortality. However, this reduction must be evaluated against the potential harms associated with screening, including complications from diagnostic procedures, and costs of overdiagnosis, as evidenced in several studies. We conclude that in high-risk populations, lung cancer screening with LDCT results in earlier detection of low-stage cancers and improved survival when compared to usual clinical care or screening with a chest X-ray.

Background: Improvements in revascularisation, including pharmacological, catheter-based and surgical, have resulted in improved outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), leading to decreased frequency of mechanical complications. Improvements in both techniques and technology have permitted select patients to be managed with a purely percutaneous, transcatheter strategy. Through systematic review, this study aims to synthesise the collective experience of percutaneous treatment of the mechanical complications of ischaemic heart disease. Methods: The search strategy queried the electronic databases PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2020. Studies highlighting the outcomes of patients receiving percutaneous treatment of post-myocardial infarction papillary muscle rupture (PMR), ventricular septal defect (VSD), left ventricular free wall rupture (FWR) and pseudoaneurysm (PA) were included. A qualitative review of studies was conducted for PMR, FWR and PA. A quantitative analysis was conducted for VSD.Results: Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis of the percutaneous management of PMR, 4 were included in the qualitative analysis of the percutaneous management of left ventricular FWR, 7 studies defined the outcomes of the percutaneous management of PA and 25 were included in the quantitative meta-analysis of the primary percutaneous management of post-MI VSD. For VSD, there were 43 failed procedures in 314 patients. The proportion of failed procedures was 15.9% and there were 174 deaths in 428 patients. 37.5% of patients experienced early mortality.Conclusions: Although surgical techniques remain the gold standard, we have shown that percutaneous management may be a viable option in certain cases.

No abstract

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘Is totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting compared with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting associated with superior outcomes in patients with isolated left anterior descending disease?’ Altogether more than 118 papers were found using the reported search, of which 4 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question, which included 2 prospective cohort studies and 2 retrospective observational studies. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers were tabulated. There is a significant variation within the MIDCAB and TECAB techniques amongst the studies-including the experience of the surgeon, use of cardiopulmonary bypass, patient selection, and target vessel grafting strategies-highlighting the complexity of comparing these two minimally invasive procedures. Operative times were comparable across all studies, with TECAB patients having higher transfusions rates and conversion rates to either a median sternotomy or MIDCAB procedure. Overall safety was comparable between the two cohort groups, with similar length of stay and 30-day mortality. However, the TECAB group were more likely to require re-operation for bleeding and reintervention for early revascularisation with greater total hospital costs than the MIDCAB patients. Based on the available evidence, we conclude that TECAB is associated with a higher rate of transfusions, conversion to median sternotomy or MIDCAB, early graft failure and reintervention compared to the MIDCAB approach. We advise caution in adopting a TECAB approach.

No abstract

No abstract