The COVID-19 pandemic strained healthcare systems worldwide, delaying breast cancer screening and surgery. In 2019, approximately 80% of breast cancers in the U.S. were diagnosed on screening examinations, with 76.4% of eligible Medicare patients undergoing screening at least every two years. Since the start of the pandemic, many women have been reluctant to seek elective screening mammography, even with the lifting of pandemic-related restrictions in access to routine healthcare. We describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer presentation at a tertiary academic medical center greatly impacted by the pandemic.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic strained healthcare systems worldwide, delaying breast cancer screening and surgery. In 2019, approximately 80% of breast cancers in the U.S. were diagnosed on screening examinations, with 76.4% of eligible Medicare patients undergoing screening at least every two years. Since the start of the pandemic, many women have been reluctant to seek elective screening mammography, even with the lifting of “lock-down”. We describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer presentation at an academic medical center in a city hit hard by the pandemic. Materials and Methods: The institutional IRB-approved Breast Cancer Registry Database was queried for patients enrolled during two time periods, those undergoing first surgical procedure before the start of the pandemic (4/1/2019-3/31/2020) to those the year after the pandemic started (4/1/2020-3/31/2021). Elective cancer surgery was paused for 3 weeks, ending 4/20/2020, and access to routine breast care was limited for 3 months. Variables included age, method of detection, palpability, histologic subtype and staging, neoadjuvant systemic therapy, cancer specific treatments, and radiation uptake. Results: 349 patients were in the 2019 cohort; 246 in the 2020 cohort. No differences in baseline characteristics, including age at presentation, nodal status, or operation type. Fewer cancers were detected on routine mammography post-COVID vs. pre-COVID. Increase in detection of breast cancer through self-exams in 2020 was seen compared to 2019. Palpability on presentation also increased. More patients were treated with neo-adjuvant therapy chemotherapy, and 36 of 45 (80%) eligible early-stage breast cancer patients accepted neoadjuvant hormonal therapy during the period that elective cancer surgery was on hold. Patients received radiation therapy less frequently during the pandemic. The proportion of patients diagnosed with invasive ductal cancers was higher in the 2020 cohort and the proportion of patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and for invasive lobular cancers (ILC) was lower. Conclusions: Patients at an academic New York City medical center presented with more palpable and invasive breast cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the preceding year, and fewer patients with DCIS and ILC, cancers typically detected following screening mammography. While stage migration with an increase in diagnosis of late stage cancers has been described, in our population the stage shift occurred in early stage breast cancer, with decreases in DCIS and increases in Stages I-II, with the higher stages III-IV essentially unchanged. This reflects the effect of delay in our previously highly-screened population, with an average screening delay of 3 + months, and many patients missing their yearly screening altogether. While many medical interactions during COVID-19 were via telemedicine, radiation therapy requires daily office visits, and fear of exposure contributed to the lower rate of radiation. Given the increase in invasiveness and stage of breast cancers diagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study emphasizes the importance of screening for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, even in the face of a concurrent health crisis. Variable2019 Population N=3492020 Population N=246P-ValueMethod of DetectionSelf-Exam19.80%26.0%0.0688Mammography67.0%60.0%Palpability31.50%39.20%0.0533Neoadjuvant Therapy8.30%10.20%0.4384Radiation Therapy65.0%54%<0.0001Age at presentation60.0460.680.6171Type of surgeryBreast Conserving Surgery69%66%<0.8508Mastectomy31%34%HistologyIDC60.70%66.7%0.5822DCIS20.9%16.7%ILC10.6%8.10% Citation Format: Amber Azniv Guth, Brian Diskin, Freya Schnabel, Nakisa Pourkey, Deborah Axelrod, Richard Shapiro. Changes in breast cancer presentation during Covid-19: Experience in an Urban Academic Center [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-03-01.
Introduction: Positive lumpectomy margins are associated with an increased risk for ipsilateral tumor recurrence, and necessitate additional procedures to achieve acceptable margins. Re-excision rates are higher in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus those with invasive carcinoma. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical techniques, and other outcomes associated with re-excision over time following primary breast conserving surgery for DCIS. Methods: Our institutional Breast Cancer Database was queried for patients treated with lumpectomy as the primary procedure for pure DCIS from 2010-2021. Cases of microinvasive disease were excluded. The primary endpoint was the rate of re-excision following lumpectomy. Variables of interest included patient demographics and clinicopathologic characteristics. As a secondary analysis, adjusted odds ratios for the association of MarginProbe® with re-excisions were calculated using a multivariable logistic regression model controlling for age, tumor size, breast density and DCIS subtype. Individual comparisons of continuous variables were based on t-tests, group proportions compared with one-way ANOVA, and categorical variables compared using Chi Square tests. Results: Out of a total of 695 patients in our cohort, 221 (32%) had re-excisions. There was a statistically significant 2% decline per year in the number of re-excisions (p=0.005). Patients who underwent re-excision had larger size of DCIS (2.37 cm vs 1.37 cm, p<0.001). Papillary-type DCIS was associated with an increased rate of re-excision surgery (Table 1). Prior to the introduction of the MarginProbe® for intraoperative margin assessment in 2014, approximately 42% of patients with DCIS underwent re-excisions. This decreased to 24.9% in the post-2013 time frame (p=0.02). In an unadjusted estimate for the odds ratio for association, patients who underwent lumpectomy with MarginProbe® were 81% less likely to require re-excision (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.12, 0.31, p<0.0001). In a logistic regression model controlling for potential confounders with re-excision as the dependent variable and MarginProbe® as the primary explanatory variable, patients for whom the MarginProbe® was used were 66% less likely to require re-excision when controlling for age, tumor size, menopausal status, breast density, and pathology (OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.16, 0.69). Of patients who required re-excision, 20% went on to mastectomies as their second procedure. After each unsuccessful re-excision, a larger proportion of patients converted to mastectomy. In total, 26% of patients who had unsuccessful primary surgery went on to mastectomies. Of patients who proceeded to mastectomy as their second procedures, 13% were found to carry BRCA1 or 2 mutations. Conclusions: In our study of patients diagnosed with pure DCIS and treated with primary breast conserving surgery, larger size of DCIS and papillary subtype were associated with an increased rate of re-excision procedures. A proportion of patients with unsuccessful primary lumpectomies required multiple procedures to complete their surgical treatment and 26% went on to mastectomy. Patients whose primary procedures included intraoperative margin assessment with the MarginProbe® were significantly less likely to require re-excision. Intraoperative margin assessment is an important tool that can support breast conserving surgery in the challenging population of patients with DCIS. Table 1.Clinicopathologic CharacteristicsVariableNo Re-excision (n=313)Re-Excision (n=100)P-ValueAge; mean (SD)61.48 (12.01)58.04 (13.39)0.016Age of Menopause; mean (SD)50.22 (5.18)48.13 (5.45)0.004Size of DCIS; mean (SD)1.37 (1.25)2.37 (2.00)<0.001Breast Density (%)0.149N/A6 (1.9)2 (2.0)Entirely Fatty10 (3.2)3 (3.0)Extremely Dense19 (6.1)13 (13.0)Heterogeneously Dense165 (52.7)42 (42.0)Scattered Fibroglandular113 (36.1)40 (4.0)DCIS SubtypePapillary93 (29.7)48 (48.0)0.001Cribiform206 (65.8)69 (69.0)0.641Solid190 (60.7)60 (60.0)0.994Comedo54 (17.3)25 (25.0)0.117Surgical Margins (%)<0.001Close (>0 and <1mm)3 (1.0)60 (60.0)Negative (≥1 mm)310 (99.0)13 (13.0)Positive (≤0 mm)0 (0.0)27 (27.0) Citation Format: Joshua A Feinberg, Charles DiMaggio, Nakisa Pourkey, Jennifer Chun Kim, Jenny Goodgal, Amber Guth, Deborah Axelrod, Freya Schnabel. Meeting the challenge of successful one-stage lumpectomy for DCIS [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-18-11.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.