scholarly journals Breast Cancer Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Clinical Study of the Breast Surgery Clinic at Ospedale Policlinico San Martino – Genoa, Italy

In Vivo ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3 suppl) ◽  
pp. 1667-1673 ◽  
Author(s):  
PIERO FREGATTI ◽  
MARCO GIPPONI ◽  
MARIA GIACCHINO ◽  
MARCO SPARAVIGNA ◽  
FEDERICA MURELLI ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (6) ◽  
pp. 472-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hassan Malik ◽  
Hugh Bishop ◽  
John Winstanley

INTRODUCTION Current guidelines on blood ordering in our hospital require all patients undergoing elective breast cancer surgery to have blood grouped, screened and saved as an part of a pre-operative assessment. The aim of this audit was to assess the need for, and cost effectiveness of, this approach in elective breast cancer surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS Retrospective data collection was undertaken for a 2-year period using the theatre booking system. As a result, 497 consecutive elective breast surgery operations including mastectomies, wide local excisions and breast reconstruction procedures were identified for analysis. Using the hospital blood bank computer system, we established the blood group and save or cross-match status as well as the pre- and postoperative haemoglobin results and blood transfusion related data for each of the patients identified. RESULTS Of the 497 patients, 438 (88.1%) had blood sent for group-and-save. Of the total 497 patients identified, only 19 (3.82%) patients received a blood transfusion. From the 447 patients undergoing simple mastectomy or wide local excisions alone, 9 patients (1.81%) required transfusion. Fifty patients underwent an immediate reconstruction procedure of whom 10 (20%) required a transfusion. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that reconstruction is more likely to be associated with the need for a postoperative transfusion. However, in the context of all breast surgery, blood transfusion is rarely requested. Given this, the time and cost involved in processing a group-and-save pre-operatively is not justified.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Ferre ◽  
Chiara Seghieri ◽  
Sabina Nuti

Abstract Background Equity and quality in healthcare are key goals embraced by universal healthcare systems; however, inequalities in access and unwarranted variations in quality of care are well documented in the Italian healthcare system. To reduce unwarranted variation and improve equal utilization of services at hospital level, national quality standards have been applied for selected clinical procedures including oncological surgery for which there is evidence of a positive relationship between volumes and clinical outcomes. However, high dispersion of surgical interventions across hospitals still exists highlighting the need to understand the determinants behind women’s choice for hospital for breast surgery. Methods We apply mixed logit regression to investigate the determinants, both at patient and provider level, associated with women’s choice of hospital for breast surgery. Patient level non-emergency hospital data are used to model breast cancer surgical choices in Tuscany region, Italy. We considered hospitalizations occurring during 2016. We focused on the effects of travel time and hospital performance for breast cancer treatments (elective surgery) in different patient groups. Hospital quality indicators include structural variables (volumes), measurement of process (timeliness) and quality of surgical procedures as recommended by clinical guidelines (proportion of breast-conservative surgery and execution of the sentinel lymph node biopsy). Results Results reveal that women prefer hospitals nearby, delivering high volumes of interventions with an appropriate surgical approach. Differences in women choice depend on education and age. Highly educated patients travelled further to seek surgical intervention for breast cancer and were likely to select high performing hospitals. Moreover, older women preferred quicker response compared to younger women when awaiting surgical interventions. Conclusions Differences in patient choice highlight equity concerns in access to elective breast cancer surgery. These results could be used to optimize the allocation of resources toward breast cancer units that meet quality and efficacy standards to increase the efficiency and responsiveness of breast cancer care.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Cappelli ◽  
Fabio Pelle ◽  
Marco Clementi ◽  
Maddalena Barba ◽  
Patrizia Vici ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Over the Covid-19 pandemic, the compelling need of containing the virus spread while providing diseased people with adequate assistance has inevitably reflected on treatment priorities, which have been sometimes radically revised according to the intrinsic nature of the institution considered and its role and action within the pandemic context. We report on the experience matured at the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute concerning the effects of the restriction measures adopted during the pandemic on the outcomes of surgical site infections (SSIs) in breast cancer patients (BC-pts) undergoing non-deferrable breast cancer surgery. Methods: Within the frame of an observational study, we compared evidence from two cohorts, namely, the lockdown cohort (LDC) and non-lockdown cohort (NLDC). Patients from the LDC underwent breast cancer surgery between the 15th March 2020 and the 4th May 2020. Breast surgery was performed by the same team and postsurgical controls were performed regularly for a minimum of 12-months. SSIs were defined according to the criteria established by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Results: The LDC originally included 79 breast cancer patients, of whom 62 provided data to the final analysis. In the LDC, initially 64 breast cancer patients, only 52 were finally considered. No relevant differences emerged between LDC and NLDC by general characteristics. We observed significant evidence of lower SSIs in the subgroups of patients having undergone skin reducing mastectomy compared with the remaining subgroups (p=0.003). The overall number of surgical site infections was 10 (8.7%), and the median time to their occurrence17.1 days (7- 42). In the NLDC, 7 (13.5) SSIs were identified, with a median time to occurrence of 18.2 days (7-42). In the LDC, 3 (4.8%) SSIs occurred, with a median time to occurrence of 14.3 days (7 to 21). None of these patients was in need of re-hospitalization and there were no delays in adjuvant treatment starting. Conclusions: The restrictive measures issued during the lockdown period seemed to lower the SSI rates in breast cancer patients undergoing non-deferrable breast surgery, although, caution is needed due to the limited sample size.


2017 ◽  
pp. 175-179
Author(s):  
Erika Basso Ricci

Background: Breast cancer surgery is often associated with severe postoperative pain that may compromise systemic homeostasis, which increases perioperative morbidity, the length of stay in the hospital, and costs. Scientifi c evidence has also shown that an inadequate analgesia could promote the risk of persistent pain development after breast surgery. Objective: Recent literature suggested that the pectoral nerves II (PECS II) block may represent a valid alternative to general anesthesia (GA) and conventional, regional techniques for analgesia in breast surgery. This technique may provide complete anesthesia of the lateral part of the thorax but cannot block, by itself, the anterior cutaneous branches of the intercostal nerves. The combination of a parasternal block (PSB) and a PECS II block has been performed as a single anesthetic technique. Study Design: This is an observational, monocenter, prospective, and cohort study. We obtained the approval of our scientifi c ethic committee and clinical trials registration. Setting: This study enrolled patients undergoing an elective breast surgery. In particular, we enrolled patients who were scheduled for a mastectomy or quadrantectomy of the medial part of the breast. Methods: We recruited 40 patients who were scheduled for breast surgery. A PECS II block was performed with an injection of ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL + 10 mL. Then, a PSB was performed by 2 separate injections of 3 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine, for each one, at the level of the second and fourth intercostal space. All of the patients received intraoperative sedation and multimodal analgesia. During the intraoperative period, the accessory need of a local anesthetic infi ltration, conversion to GA, and the total amount of propofol required to maintain good comfort of the patients were recorded. In the fi rst 24 postoperative hours, every 6 hours, postoperative pain was assessed by an investigator using a numerical rating scale (NRS). The consumption of analgesic and antiemetic drugs and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were also recorded. Results: Our observational analysis yielded 40 patients in a period of 6 months. The population was subdivided into 2 groups: a mastectomy group or a quadrantectomy group. All of the population reported their pain scores at rest (rNRS < 3) and during activity (iNRS < 5) in the postoperative period. None of the patients required GA. Six patients (27.3%) in the mastectomy group required a supplemental anesthetic infi ltration. Eleven (27.5%) patients required a rescue analgesic drug: 9 (40.9%) in the mastectomy group and 2 (11.1%) in the quadrantectomy group. Two patients reported events of PONV, one for each group (4.54% for the mastectomy group and 5.55% for the quadrantectomy group). No complications occurred. Conclusion: This study indicates the safety and feasibility of the novel ultrasound-guided thoracic wall blocks during inpatient and outpatient breast surgery for the management of intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Limitations: This is an observational study; a randomized control trial is mandatory to confi rm the results. Key words: Breast cancer surgery, pectoralis nerve block, parasternal block, ultrasound-guided anesthesia, regional anesthesia, pain control


Breast Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 366-372
Author(s):  
Lynda Wyld ◽  
Isabel T. Rubio ◽  
Tibor Kovacs

Background: The substantial increase in the complexity of breast cancer care in the last few decades has resulted in significant improvements in survival rates and also in the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. However, across Europe there are variations in outcomes and access to the latest techniques. Whilst much of this variance is due to differences in health economies between European member states, training variation may also play a part. Training in breast cancer surgery varies greatly across Europe, not only in its basal discipline (general surgery, gynaecology or plastic surgery) but also in the length of training and whether there is any requirement for specialist training. Several countries have been leading the way in training breast specialist surgeons (the USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand) with dedicated 1- or 2-year fellowships either within or in addition to standard training. Access to such training is limited and consequently many women in Europe are still treated by generalists, potentially denying them access to the best care. This paper reviews the issues surrounding training provision in breast surgery and some of the challenges which need to be addressed to improve the current situation. Summary: Breast surgery training in Europe is of variable quality and duration, which may result in variations in the quality of care received by patients with breast cancer. Specialist training standards are urgently required which should be adopted by all European member states. Excellent models are available in the USA, the UK and Australia and New Zealand on which to base this training. Key Messages: The quality of training in breast surgery needs to be upgraded and harmonised across Europe.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 120-121
Author(s):  
Michael Jonczyk ◽  
Jolie Jean ◽  
Roger Graham ◽  
Abhishek Chatterjee

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Treatment of breast cancer surgery can be classified into two overall groups: Breast-Conserving Therapy (BCT) (including partial mastectomy (PM) and oncoplastic surgery (OS)) and MAST (including mastectomy (M) and M with breast reconstruction (M+R)). Breast reconstruction (OS or M+R) offers patients an improved quality of life by aesthetically symmetric breast, higher patient satisfaction and reduced re-excision rates. Furthermore, subgroups of M+R, mastectomy with implant placement (M+I) has doubled to 21%, meanwhile mastectomy with muscular flap reconstruction (M+MF) has declined to only 2% of overall breast cancer intervention. Furthermore, in patients with with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), published national guidelines recommend that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) should be offered when treated with M and should not be offered when treated with BCS. Overall complication rates for breast cancer surgery vary depending on short-term or long term outcome but are approximately 2-40%. Mortality and overall morbidity are overall low in less than 5% of cases. Known wound or infectious complications have been associated with smoking, radiation, obesity and diabetes. Nevertheless, other patient comorbidities and surgical predictors influencing acute postoperative complications are contentious. Single institutional studies or reviews compared single or two groups of breast cancer interventions for post-operative complication rates. Few studies with large enough patient cohort to analyze all possible variables influencing post-operative acute complications following all breast cancer surgeries. Understanding surgical complications is crucial to patient safety and improving health outcomes. Therefore, this study examines the 30-day postoperative complication rates in breast cancer patients who underwent a PM, M, M+R, or OS. Using the NSQIP database, we aim to elucidate these surgical trends and complications trends, while expanding our understanding of predictive surgical factors. We also examined appropriate axillary management associated with surgical interventions between 2005 and 2016. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2017. All participant user files (PUF) were obtained and approved by ACS NSQIP. The Tufts Medical Center Institutional Review Board deemed this study exempt from institutional review, given ACS NSQIP database is a de-identified data set. Inclusion criteria for this study were women with classified post-operative diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (IBC) or ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) breast cancer who underwent either any BCT or any MAST procedure. Post-operative diagnosis was classified according International Classification of Diseases Ninth/Tenth Revision (ICD-9/10) code for IBC or DCIS. Surgical (M, PM, OS, M+R) and axillary lymph node categorization were done using CPT codes known for each intervention. Exclusion criteria included males, benign breast surgery, surgery for benign breast disease, lobular carcinoma, patients undergoing breast cancer surgery with 2 CPT codes with ambiguous category placement and septic patients at time of surgery. For each intervention, a total of 16 complications were clustered into 8 groups and examined over the 13-year period. ALN management was categorized as follows: no intervention on ALNs, or ALN surgery (SLNB or ALN dissection (ALND)). Chi-square tests were performed for demographic and complication rate analysis. Smoothed linear regression and non-parametric Mann- Kendall test assessed complication trends. Uni-variate and multivariate logistical regression were computed to associate odd’s ratio for comorbidities, surgical predictors and patients demographics. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 226,899 patients met the inclusion criteria. Annual breast surgery trends changed as follows: PM 45.6% to 45.9 (p=0.21), M 36.8% to 25.5% (p=0.001), M+R 15.7% to 23.6% (p=0.03) and OS 1.8% to 5.0% (p=0.001). Analyzing the patient cohort who underwent breast conservation, categorical analysis showed a decreased use of PM alone (96% to 90%) with an increased use of OS (4% to 10%). For the patient cohort undergoing mastectomy, M alone decreased (69% to 52%); M+R with muscular flap decreased (9% to 2%); and M+R with implant placement increased (20% to 41%) – all 3 trends p<0.0001. The rate of ALN management has changed as follows: SNLB or ALND significantly increased in mastectomy patients from 53.6% to 69.5% (SS 1.5%, R2 0.69, p < 0.01), while it changed little in the BCS population: 22.5% to 26.4% (SS 0.4%, R2 0.18, p = 0.09). Complication rates have steadily increased in all mastectomy groups (p< 0.05) but not in BCT. Cumulative complication rates between surgical categories were significantly different in each complication cluster (all p<0.0001). Overall complication rates were: PM: 2.25%, OS: 3.2%, M: 6.56%, M+MF: 13.04% and M+I: 5.68%. The most common predictive risk factors were mastectomy interventions, increasing operative time, ASA class and BMI, smoking, recent weight loss, history of CHF, COPD and bleeding disorders (all p<0.001). Patients who were non-diabetic, younger (<60) and treated as outpatient all had protective OR for an acute complication (p<0.0001). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The modern era of breast surgery is identified by the increasing use of reconstruction for patients undergoing breast conservation (in the form of OS) and mastectomy (in the form of M+R). Despite national recommendations for the management of axillary lymph nodes in patients undergoing breast surgery for DCIS, nearly 30% of cases continue to be mismanaged: more than 30% of patients with DCIS undergoing mastectomy fail to receive SLNB, and more than 26% of DCIS patients undergoing BCS are still receiving axillary lymph node surgery. Our study provides data showing significant trends that will impact the future of both breast cancer surgery and breast training programs. We also provide data comparing nationwide acute complication rates following different breast cancer surgeries that can be used to inform patients during surgical decision making.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-194
Author(s):  
Saeid Charsouei ◽  
Loghman Ghaderi ◽  
Hassan Mohammadipour Anvari ◽  
Reza Eghdam Zamiri

Objectives: Approximately one-third of women having breast surgery experience neuropathic pain although no study has so far identified its risk factors. It seems that the coronavirus infection increases the likelihood of neuropathic pain through influencing the neuropsychological system. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate factors affecting the severity of neuropathic pain before and after coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) in patients who had breast cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: The current descriptive-analytical study was conducted six months before June 4, 2020. In total, 40 women having breast surgery participated in this study. Postoperative neuropathic pain and its influencing factors were evaluated using demographic tools, Spielberger anxiety, and a 36-item short-form health survey for measuring the quality of life (QoL). Finally, data were analyzed by multivariate regression. Results: Neuropathic pain significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mastectomy (P=0.009), removal of lymph nodes (P=0.011), number of radiotherapy sessions (P=0.003), history of chemotherapy (P=0.009), disease stage (P=0.015), hidden anxiety (P=0.005), and explicit anxiety (P=0.001), and all domains of QoL (P<0.05) significantly predicted neuropathic pain. Conclusions: In general, adverse effects of coronavirus pandemic reduced the QoL while increasing anxiety (hidden and explicit), thus leading to an increase in the severity of postoperative neuropathic pain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document