Core needle biopsy (CNB) is used to sample both mammographically and ultrasound detected breast lesions. A diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by CNB does not ensure the absence of invasive cancer upon surgical excision and as a result an upstaged patient may need to undergo additional surgery for axillary nodal evaluation. This study evaluates the accuracy of CNB in excluding invasive disease and the preoperative features that predict upstaging of DCIS to invasive breast cancer. Two hundred fifty-four patients over an 8-year period from 1994 to 2002 with a diagnosis of DCIS alone by CNB were retrospectively reviewed. Underestimation of invasive cancer by CNB was determined. Radiographic, pathologic, and surgical features of the cohort were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis. The mean age was 55 years (range 27-84) and mean follow-up was 25 months with one patient unavailable for follow-up. There were a total of six patient deaths, all of which were not disease-specific. A total of 21 out of 254 patients (8%) with DCIS by CNB were upstaged to invasive cancer following surgical excision. There was a significant inverse relationship between the number of core biopsies and the incidence of upstaging (p < 0.006) in that patients with fewer core samples were more likely to be upstaged at surgical pathology. No relationship was noted between the size of the core samples and the likelihood of upstaging (p > 0.4). Of 21 patients with invasion, all but two had comedonecrosis by CNB. Comedonecrosis by CNB significantly increased the likelihood of upstaging (p < 0.001). Of the 21 patients who were upstaged, 12 required subsequent surgery for nodal evaluation while nine had sentinel node biopsy at initial operation. Finally, upstaged patients were significantly more likely to have a positive margin (p < 0.008). Ductal carcinoma in situ with comedonecrosis on CNB can help to predict the possibility of invasion. Increasing the number of core biopsies reduced the likelihood of sampling error.

No abstract

Objective: Residency interviews serve as an opportunity for prospective applicants to evaluate programs and to determine their potential fit within them. The 2019 SARS-CoV2 pandemic mandated programs conduct interviews virtually for the first time. The purpose of this study was to assess applicant perspectives on the virtual interview. Methods: A Qualtrics survey assessing applicant characteristics and attitudes toward the virtual interview was designed and disseminated to otorhinolaryngology applicants from 3 large academic institutions in the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. Results: A total of 33% of survey applicants responded. Most applicants were satisfied with the virtual interview process. Applicants reported relatively poor quality of interactions with residents and an inability to assess the “feel” of a geographic area. Most applicants received at least 11 interviews with over a third of applicants receiving >16 interviews. Only 5% of applicants completed >20 interviews. Most applicants believed interviews should be capped between 15 and 20 interviews. Most applicants reported saving >$5000, with over a quarter of applicants saving >$8000, and roughly one-third of applicants saving at least 2 weeks of time with virtual versus in-person interviews. Conclusions: While virtual interviews have limitations, applicants are generally satisfied with the experience. Advantages include cost and time savings for both applicants and programs, as well as easy use of technology. Continuation of the virtual interview format could be considered in future application cycles; geographical limitations may be overcome with in-person second looks, and increased emphasis should be placed on resident interactions during and prior to interview day.