Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Do Eligibility Criteria for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Active Surveillance Trials Identify Patients at Low Risk for Upgrade to Invasive Carcinoma?

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Clinical trials are currently ongoing to determine the safety and efficacy of active surveillance (AS) versus usual care (surgical and radiation treatment) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This study aimed to determine upgrade rates of DCIS at needle biopsy to invasive carcinoma at surgery among women who meet the eligibility criteria for AS trials.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of consecutive women at an academic medical center with a diagnosis of DCIS at needle biopsy from 2007 to 2016. Medical records were reviewed for mode of presentation, imaging findings, biopsy pathology results, and surgical outcomes. Each patient with DCIS was evaluated for AS trial eligibility based on published criteria for the COMET, LORD, and LORIS trials.

Results

During a 10-year period, DCIS was diagnosed in 858 women (mean age 58 years; range 28–89 years). Of the 858 women, 498 (58%) were eligible for the COMET trial, 101 (11.8%) for the LORD trial, and 343 (40%) for the LORIS trial. The rates of upgrade to invasive carcinoma were 12% (60/498) for the COMET trial, 5% (5/101) for the LORD trial, and 11.1% (38/343) for the LORIS trial. The invasive carcinomas ranged from 0.2 to 20 mm, and all were node-negative.

Conclusions

Women who meet the eligibility criteria for DCIS AS trials remain at risk for occult invasive carcinoma at presentation, with upgrade rates ranging from 5 to 12%. These findings suggest that more precise criteria are needed to ensure that women with invasive carcinoma are excluded from AS trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M, et al. Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics. 2010;30:1183–98. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.305095073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mitchell KB, Kuerer H. Ductal carcinoma in situ: treatment update and current trends. Curr Oncol Rep. 2015;17:48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-015-0473-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pang JM, Gorringe KL, Fox SB. Ductal carcinoma in situ: update on risk assessment and management. Histopathology. 2016;68:96–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12796.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosso KJ, Weiss A, Thompson AM. Are there alternative strategies for the local management of ductal carcinoma in situ? Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 2018;27:69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2017.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bruce J, Thornton AJ, Scott NW, et al. Chronic preoperative pain and psychological robustness predict acute postoperative pain outcomes after surgery for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:937–46. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.341.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller ME, Muhsen S, Olcese C, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: is it high enough to justify bilateral mastectomy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2889–97. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5931-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, et al. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ: the LORD study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1497–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:2296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, et al. The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026797. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026797.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Grimm LJ, Shelley Hwang E. Active surveillance for DCIS: the importance of selection criteria and monitoring. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:4134–6. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5596-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2011;260:119–28. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Goodman SN, et al. Nonpalpable breast cancer: percutaneous diagnosis with 11- and 8-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy devices. Radiology. 2001;219:793–6. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01jn34793.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology. 2001;218:497–502. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.218.2.r01fe35497.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wahedna Y, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, et al. Mammographic size of ductal carcinoma in situ does not predict the presence of an invasive focus. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:459–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00397-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, et al. Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ? Analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:311–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9167-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, Ambrogetti D. Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer. 2007;109:487–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Marinovich ML, et al. Accuracy of a preoperative model for predicting invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ on vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1364–71. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1438-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim J, Han W, Lee JW, et al. Factors associated with upstaging from ductal carcinoma in situ following core needle biopsy to invasive cancer in subsequent surgical excision. Breast. 2012;21:641–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.06.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trentin C, Dominelli V, Maisonneuve P, et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer and lymph node involvement in ductal carcinoma in situ initially diagnosed by vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: experience of 733 cases. Breast. 2012;21:635–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schulz S, Sinn P, Golatta M, et al. Prediction of underestimated invasiveness in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast on percutaneous biopsy as rationale for recommending concurrent sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast. 2013;22:537–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parikh U, Chhor CM, Mercado CL. Ductal carcinoma in situ: the whole truth. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:246–55. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.17.18778.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lamb LR, Lehman CD, Oseni TO, Bahl M. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at breast MRI: predictors of upgrade to invasive carcinoma. Acad Radiol. 2019. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.09.025.

  23. Grimm LJ, Ryser MD, Partridge AH, et al. Surgical upstaging rates for vacuum-assisted biopsy-proven DCIS: implications for active surveillance trials. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3534–40. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6018-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, et al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA. 2015;313:1122–32. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.1405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Pilewskie M, Stempel M, Rosenfeld H, et al. Do LORIS trial eligibility criteria identify a ductal carcinoma in situ patient population at low risk of upgrade to invasive carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3487–93. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5268-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Soumian S, Verghese ET, Booth M, et al. Concordance between vacuum-assisted biopsy and postoperative histology: implications for the proposed Low-Risk DCIS Trial (LORIS). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:1337–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.09.028.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Podoll MB, Reisenbichler ES, Roland L, et al. Feasibility of the less-is-more approach in treating low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core needle biopsy: ten-year review of ductal carcinoma in situ upgraded to invasion at surgery. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:1120–6. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2017-0268-oa.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ryser MD, Worni M, Turner EL, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for ductal carcinoma in situ: a computational risk analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;108. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv372.

  29. Shi B, Grimm LJ, Mazurowski MA, et al. Can occult invasive disease in ductal carcinoma in situ be predicted using computer-extracted mammographic features? Acad Radiol. 2017;24:1139–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.03.013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lin CY, Mooney K, Choy W, et al. Will oncotype DX DCIS testing guide therapy? A single-institution correlation of oncotype DX DCIS results with histopathologic findings and clinical management decisions. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:562–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2017.172.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shi B, Grimm LJ, Mazurowski MA, et al. Prediction of occult invasive disease in ductal carcinoma in situ using deep learning features. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3 Pt B):527–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.036.

  32. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Romanoff J, et al. Association of magnetic resonance imaging and a 12-gene expression assay with breast ductal carcinoma in situ treatment. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1036–42. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6269.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhu Z, Harowicz M, Zhang J, et al. Deep learning analysis of breast MRIs for prediction of occult invasive disease in ductal carcinoma in situ. Comput Biol Med. 2019;115:103498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.103498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Agfa HealthCare/Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Research Scholar Grant (Principal Investigator (PI): Dr. Manisha Bahl) and the Electronic Space Systems Corporation (ESSCO)-MGH Breast Cancer Research Fund (PI: Dr. Manisha Bahl and Dr. Tawakalitu O. Oseni).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Tawakalitu O. Oseni MD & Barbara L. Smith MD, PhD, FACS

  2. Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Constance D. Lehman MD, PhD, Charmi A. Vijapura MD, Niveditha Pinnamaneni MD & Manisha Bahl MD, MPH

Authors
  1. Tawakalitu O. Oseni MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara L. Smith MD, PhD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Constance D. Lehman MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charmi A. Vijapura MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Niveditha Pinnamaneni MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manisha Bahl MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manisha Bahl MD, MPH.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Constance D. Lehman has served as an advisory board member for GE Healthcare, and her institution has received research support from GE Healthcare. Tawakalitu O. Oseni, Barbara L. Smith, Charmi A. Vijapura, Niveditha Pinnamaneni, and Manisha Bahl declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oseni, T.O., Smith, B.L., Lehman, C.D. et al. Do Eligibility Criteria for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Active Surveillance Trials Identify Patients at Low Risk for Upgrade to Invasive Carcinoma?. Ann Surg Oncol 27, 4459–4465 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08576-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08576-6

Search

Navigation