Literature DB >> 10583553

DCIS grading schemes and clinical implications.

B S Shoker1, J P Sloane.   

Abstract

The frequency with which ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is detected has increased greatly since the introduction of mammographic screening. The number of treatment options has also increased and mastectomy has been extensively replaced by local excision with or without radiotherapy. DCIS is generally unicentric, as evidenced by the rarity with which it is bilateral and the location of recurrences at the site of previous surgery. Complete excision is thus curative but assessing adequacy of excision is beset with significant technical problems and consequently margin involvement does not correlate very well with the presence of residual disease in the breast or the development of clinical recurrence. Lesion size is related to recurrence but is also often difficult to measure. At the histological level, DCIS is a heterogeneous group of proliferations varying in cytological and architectural features, some of which are related to clinical outcome. The traditional method of classification was by growth pattern but was found to lack reproducibility and prognostic power. As a consequence, several new classifications have been proposed in recent years. Some have been assessed more rigorously than others in terms of the consistency with which they can be applied and their ability to predict clinical outcome. There is strong evidence, however, that nuclear grade is the best predictor of recurrence and the time scale over which it is likely to occur although presently it can be determined with only fair to moderate consistency. Necrosis is also a useful feature when used in combination with nuclear grade, but specifically recognizing a comedo pattern appears to have little clinical value and is associated with significant diagnostic inconsistency. No histological features to date have been found to predict the development of invasive disease. Histological assessment alone is insufficient to determine how patients with DCIS should be managed, which should also take account pathological assessment of excision margins and lesion size as well as radiological and clinical features.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10583553     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.1999.035005393.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Histopathology        ISSN: 0309-0167            Impact factor:   5.087


  11 in total

Review 1.  Preinvasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Dennis C Sgroi
Journal:  Annu Rev Pathol       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 23.472

2.  Expression of the hypoxia-inducible and tumor-associated carbonic anhydrases in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  C C Wykoff; N Beasley; P H Watson; L Campo; S K Chia; R English; J Pastorek; W S Sly; P Ratcliffe; A L Harris
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.307

3.  Value of cytokeratin 5/6 immunostaining using D5/16 B4 antibody in the spectrum of proliferative intraepithelial lesions of the breast. A comparative study with 34betaE12 antibody.

Authors:  Magali Lacroix-Triki; Eliane Mery; Jean-Jacques Voigt; Luc Istier; Philippe Rochaix
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 4.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: terminology, classification, and natural history.

Authors:  D Craig Allred
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

5.  Heterogeneity of mammary lesions represent molecular differences.

Authors:  Ruria Namba; Jeannie E Maglione; Ryan R Davis; Colin A Baron; Stephenie Liu; Condie E Carmack; Lawrence J T Young; Alexander D Borowsky; Robert D Cardiff; Jeffrey P Gregg
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2006-12-05       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Compliance with guidelines is related to better local recurrence-free survival in ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  M A J de Roos; G H de Bock; P C Baas; L de Munck; T Wiggers; J de Vries
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-11-14       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Assessment of breast cancer opportunistic screening by clinical-pathological indicators: a population-based study.

Authors:  A Bordoni; N M Probst-Hensch; L Mazzucchelli; A Spitale
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-10-27       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Molecular grading of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  Rosemary L Balleine; Lucy R Webster; Sean Davis; Elizabeth L Salisbury; Juan P Palazzo; Gordon F Schwartz; Dennis B Cornfield; Robert L Walker; Karen Byth; Christine L Clarke; Paul S Meltzer
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 13.801

9.  Correlation between imaging and pathology in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  Marnix A J De Roos; Ruud M Pijnappel; Wendy J Post; Jaap De Vries; Peter C Baas; Lex D Groote
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2004-03-12       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  Microcalcifications Detected as an Abnormality on Screening Mammography: Outcomes and Followup over a Five-Year Period.

Authors:  Melissa Craft; Anne M Bicknell; Georges J Hazan; Karen M Flegg
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2013-10-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.