Person:

Hughes, Kevin

Background: In women 70 years of age or older who have early breast cancer, it is unclear whether lumpectomy plus tamoxifen is as effective as lumpectomy followed by tamoxifen plus radiation therapy. Methods: Between July 1994 and February 1999, we randomly assigned 636 women who were 70 years of age or older and who had clinical stage I (T1N0M0 according to the tumor– node–metastasis classification), estrogen-receptor–positive breast carcinoma treated by lumpectomy to receive tamoxifen plus radiation therapy (317 women) or tamoxifen alone (319 women). Primary end points were the time to local or regional recurrence, the frequency of mastectomy for recurrence, breast-cancer–specific survival, the time to distant metastasis, and overall survival. Results: The only significant difference between the two groups was in the rate of local or regional recurrence at five years (1 percent in the group given tamoxifen plus irradiation and 4 percent in the group given tamoxifen alone, P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the rates of mastectomy for local recurrence, distant metastases, or five-year rates of overall survival (87 percent in the group given tamoxifen plus irradiation and 86 percent in the tamoxifen group, P=0.94). Assessment by physicians and patients of cosmetic results and adverse events uniformly rated tamoxifen plus irradiation inferior to tamoxifen alone. Conclusions: Lumpectomy plus adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen alone is a realistic choice for the treatment of women 70 years of age or older who have early, estrogen-receptor–positive breast cancer.

Women diagnosed with or at high risk for breast cancer increasingly choose prophylactic mastectomy. It is unknown if adding sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) to prophylactic mastectomy increases the risk of lymphedema. We sought to determine the risk of lymphedema after mastectomy with and without nodal evaluation. 117 patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy were prospectively screened for lymphedema. Perometer arm measurements were used to calculate weight-adjusted arm volume change at each follow-up. Of 234 mastectomies performed, 15.8 % (37/234) had no axillary surgery, 63.7 % (149/234) had SLNB, and 20.5 % (48/234) had axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). 88.0 % (103/117) of patients completed the LEFT-BC questionnaire evaluating symptoms associated with lymphedema. Multivariate analysis was used to assess clinical characteristics associated with increased weight-adjusted arm volume and patient-reported lymphedema symptoms. SLNB at the time of mastectomy did not result in an increased mean weight-adjusted arm volume compared to mastectomy without axillary surgery (p = 0.76). Mastectomy with ALND was associated with a significantly greater mean weight-adjusted arm volume change compared to mastectomy with SLNB (p < 0.0001) and without axillary surgery (p = 0.0028). Patients who underwent mastectomy with ALND more commonly reported symptoms associated with lymphedema compared to those with SLNB or no axillary surgery (p < 0.0001). Patients who underwent mastectomy with SLNB or no axillary surgery reported similar lymphedema symptoms. Addition of SLNB to mastectomy is not associated with a significant increase in measured or self-reported lymphedema rates. Therefore, SLNB may be performed at the time of prophylactic mastectomy without an increased risk of lymphedema.

Purpose: Health care providers need simple tools to identify patients at genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic risk prediction models such as BRCAPRO could fill this gap if incorporated into Electronic Medical Records or other Health Information Technology solutions. However, BRCAPRO requires potentially extensive information on the counselee and her family history. Thus, it may be useful to provide simplified version(s) of BRCAPRO for use in settings that do not require exhaustive genetic counseling. Methods: We explore four simplified versions of BRCAPRO, each using less complete information than the original model. BRCAPROLYTE uses information on affected relatives only up to second degree. It is in clinical use but has not been evaluated. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus extends BRCAPROLYTE by imputing the ages of unaffected relatives. BRCAPROLYTE-Simple reduces the data collection burden associated with BRCAPROLYTE and BRCAPROLYTE-Plus by not collecting the family structure. BRCAPRO-1Degree only uses first-degree affected relatives. We use data on 2713 individuals from seven sites of the Cancer Genetics Network and MD Anderson Cancer Center to compare these simplified tools with the Family History Assessment Tool (FHAT) and BRCAPRO, with the latter serving as the benchmark. Results: BRCAPROLYTE retains high discrimination, however, because it ignores information on unaffected relatives, it overestimates carrier probabilities. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple provide better calibration than BRCAPROLYTE, so they have higher specificity for similar values of sensitivity. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus performs slightly better than BRCAPROLYTE-Simple. The Areas Under the ROC curve are 0.783 (BRCAPRO), 0.763 (BRCAPROLYTE), 0.772 (BRCAPROLYTE-Plus), 0.773 (BRCAPROLYTE-Simple), 0.728 (BRCAPRO-1Degree), and 0.745 (FHAT). The simpler versions, especially BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple, lead to only modest loss in overall discrimination compared to BRCAPRO in this dataset. Conclusion: Simplified implementations of BRCAPRO can be used for genetic risk prediction in settings where collection of complete pedigree information is impractical.

Background: Cancer risk prediction tools provide valuable information to clinicians but remain computationally challenging. Many clinics find that Ca Gene or Hughes Risk Apps fit their needs for easy- and ready-to-use software to obtain cancer risks; however, these resources may not fit all clinics’ needs. The Hughes Risk Apps Group and Bayes Mendel Lab therefore developed a web service, called “Risk Service", which may be integrated into any client software to quickly obtain standardized and up-to-date risk predictions for Bayes Mendel tools (BRCAPRO, MMRpro, PancPRO, and MelaPRO), the Tyrer-Cuzick IBIS Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Tool, and the Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. Findings: Software clients that can convert their local structured data into the HL7 XML-formatted family and clinical patient history (Pedigree model) may integrate with the Risk Service. The Risk Service uses Apache Tomcat and Apache Axis2 technologies to provide an all Java web service. The software client sends HL7 XML information containing anonymized family and clinical history to a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) server where it is parsed, interpreted, and processed by multiple risk tools. The Risk Service then formats the results into an HL7 style message and returns the risk predictions to the originating software client. Upon consent, users may allow DFCI to maintain the data for future research. The Risk Service implementation is exemplified through Hughes Risk Apps. Conclusions: The Risk Service broadens the availability of valuable, up-to-date cancer risk tools and allows clinics and researchers to integrate risk prediction tools into their own software interface designed for their needs. Each software package can collect risk data using its own interface, and display the results using its own interface, while using a central, up-to-date risk calculator. This allows users to choose from multiple interfaces while always getting the latest risk calculations. Consenting users contribute their data for future research, thus building a rich multi-center resource.

Purpose: Stemming from breast density notification legislation in Massachusetts effective 2015, we sought to develop a collaborative evidence-based approach to density notification that could be used by practitioners across the state. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based consensus management algorithm to help patients and health care providers follow best practices to implement a coordinated, evidence-based, cost-effective, sustainable practice and to standardize care in recommendations for supplemental screening. Methods: We formed the Massachusetts Breast Risk Education and Assessment Task Force (MA-BREAST) a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, primary care physicians, and oncologists to develop a collaborative approach to density notification legislation. Using evidence-based data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Cochrane review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, American Cancer Society (ACS) recommendations, and American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria, the group collaboratively developed an evidence-based best-practices algorithm. Results: The expert consensus algorithm uses breast density as one element in the risk stratification to determine the need for supplemental screening. Women with dense breasts and otherwise low risk (<15% lifetime risk), do not routinely require supplemental screening per the expert consensus. Women of high risk (>20% lifetime) should consider supplemental screening MRI in addition to routine mammography regardless of breast density. Conclusion: We report the development of the multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to density notification. We propose a risk stratification algorithm to assess personal level of risk to determine the need for supplemental screening for an individual woman.

Background: To evaluate diagnosis, management and outcome of breast cancer (BC) occurring after irradiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). Methods: 39 cases of BC in 28 HL survivors were retrospectively reviewed. 21 patients were included in a case-control analysis. Results: The median age at diagnosis of HL and BC was 25.3 and 45.3 years, respectively. The median interval to develop BC was 16.1 years. Eleven women (39.2%) had bilateral disease. Mode of detection of the index breast cancers was by mammographic screening in 17 patients (60.7%), palpable lump in 8 patients (28.6%), clinical examination in two patients (7.1%), and unknown in one patient (3.6%). Case-control analysis showed that histological features and prognosis of BC after HL were similar to those of primary BC, however, for BC after HL, mastectomy was the predominant surgery (P = .001) and adjuvant radiotherapy and anthracycline-based chemotherapy were less frequently used as compared to primary BC (P < .001 and .003, respectively). Conclusion: The previous history of HL does not appear to be a poor prognostic factor for BC occurring thereafter.

In this review of a collected series of patients undergoing hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, 100 patients were found to have survived greater than five years from the time of resection. Of these 100 long-term survivors, 71 remain disease-free through the last follow-up, 19 recurred prior to five years, and ten recurred after five years. Patient characteristics that may have contributed to survival were examined. Procedures performed included five trisegmentectomies, 32 lobectomies, 16 left lateral segmentectomies, and 45 wedge resections. The margin of resection was recorded in 27 patients, one of whom had a positive margin, nine of whom had a less than or equal to l-cm margin, and 17 of whom had a greater than 1-cm margin. Eighty-one patients had a solitary metastasis to the liver, 11 patients had two metastases, one patient had three metastases, and four patients had four metastases. Thirty patients had Stage C primary carcinoma, 40 had Stage B primary carcinoma, and one had Stage A primary carcinoma. The disease-free interval from the time of colon resection to the time of liver resection was less than one year in 65 patients, and greater than one year in 34 patients. Three patients had bilobar metastases. Four of the patients had extrahepatic disease resected simultaneously with the liver resection. Though several contraindications to hepatic resection have been proposed in the past, five-year survival has been found in patients with extrahepatic disease resected simultaneously, patients with bilobar metastases, patients with multiple metastases, and patients with positive margins. Five-year disease-free survivors are also present in each of these subsets. It is concluded that five-year survival is possible in the presence of reported contraindications to resection, and therefore that the decision to resect the liver must be individualized.

In an investigation of the indications for hepatic resection in the treatment of colorectal carcinoma metastases, the records of 859 patients who had undergone this procedure were reviewed. This patient group, from 24 institutions, was found to have a 5-year actuarial survival of 33% and a 5-year actuarial disease-free survival of 21%. The only factors that might by themselves be considered contraindications to hepatic resection are the presence of positive hepatic nodes, the presence of resectable extrahepatic metastases, or the presence of four or more metastases. Other factors that had a negative effect on long-term survival were margins of resection on the liver metastases less than or equal to 1 cm (S [5-year actuarial survival = 23%), the presence of positive mesenteric nodes in the primary tumor specimen (S = 23%), and a disease-free interval of less than 1 year (S = 24%). The effect of any one of these factors was not great enough to contraindicate resection. However, combinations of prognostic factors must be considered before resection is recommended. The overall 5-year survival rate for this large series has been very satisfying. Decision making in the future must take into account such factors as number of metastases, extrahepatic involvement, and stage of the primary tumor.

Objective: The opportunity to integrate clinical decision support systems into clinical practice is limited due to the lack of structured, machine readable data in the current format of the electronic health record. Natural language processing has been designed to convert free text into machine readable data. The aim of the current study was to ascertain the feasibility of using natural language processing to extract clinical information from >76,000 breast pathology reports. Approach and Procedure: Breast pathology reports from three institutions were analyzed using natural language processing software (Clearforest, Waltham, MA) to extract information on a variety of pathologic diagnoses of interest. Data tables were created from the extracted information according to date of surgery, side of surgery, and medical record number. The variety of ways in which each diagnosis could be represented was recorded, as a means of demonstrating the complexity of machine interpretation of free text. Results: There was widespread variation in how pathologists reported common pathologic diagnoses. We report, for example, 124 ways of saying invasive ductal carcinoma and 95 ways of saying invasive lobular carcinoma. There were >4000 ways of saying invasive ductal carcinoma was not present. Natural language processor sensitivity and specificity were 99.1% and 96.5% when compared to expert human coders. Conclusion: We have demonstrated how a large body of free text medical information such as seen in breast pathology reports, can be converted to a machine readable format using natural language processing, and described the inherent complexities of the task.

Background: Histopathology is the only accepted method to measure and stage the breast tumor size. However, there is a need to find another method to measure and stage the tumor size when the pathological assessment is not available. Micro-computed tomography. (micro-CT) has the ability to measure tumor in three dimensions in an intact lumpectomy specimen. In this study, we aimed to determine the accuracy of micro-CT to measure and stage the primary tumor size in breast lumpectomy specimens, as compared to the histopathology. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two women who underwent lumpectomy surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Surgery from June 2011 to September 2011, and from August 2013 to December 2013 participated in this study. The lumpectomy specimens were scanned using micro-CT followed by routine pathological processing. The maximum dimension of the invasive breast tumor was obtained from the micro-CT image and was compared to the corresponding pathology report for each subject. Results: The invasive tumor size measurement by micro-CT was underestimated in 24 cases. (33%), overestimated in 37 cases. (51%), and matched it exactly in 11 cases. (15%) compared to the histopathology measurement for all the cases. However, micro-CT T-stage classification differed from histopathology in only 11. (15.2%) with 6 cases. (8.3%) classified as a higher stage by micro-CT, and 5 cases. (6.9%) classified as lower compared to histopathology. In addition, micro-CT demonstrated a statically significant strong agreement (κ =0.6, P < 0.05) with pathological tumor size and staging for invasive ductal carcinoma. (IDC) group. In contrast, there was no agreement. (κ = −2, P = 0.67) between micro-CT and pathology in estimating and staging tumor size for invasive lobular carcinoma. (ILC) group. This could be explained by a small sample size. (7) for ILC group. Conclusions: Micro-CT is a promising modality for measuring and staging the IDC.