BACKGROUND: Local recurrence is used as a marker of treatment failure for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). As follow-up lengthens, distant recurrence, breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival must be monitored. METHODS: A prospective database was used to analyze 1031 patients with DCIS. Patients having invasive recurrence after DCIS treatment were compared with patients having infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC). End points included distant recurrence, BCSS, and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, patients with DCIS had a BCSS of 99%. BCSS was 85% for patients with invasive recurrences. DDFS in this group was 80%. Stage I IDC patients had a BCSS of 91%, whereas it was 38% in those with stage I IDC and invasive recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with DCIS that recur can be salvaged. For the small subgroup of patients who recur with invasive breast cancer, survival is similar to that of patients with stage IIA IDC.
BACKGROUND: Local recurrence is used as a marker of treatment failure for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). As follow-up lengthens, distant recurrence, breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival must be monitored. METHODS: A prospective database was used to analyze 1031 patients with DCIS. Patients having invasive recurrence after DCIS treatment were compared with patients having infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC). End points included distant recurrence, BCSS, and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, patients with DCIS had a BCSS of 99%. BCSS was 85% for patients with invasive recurrences. DDFS in this group was 80%. Stage I IDC patients had a BCSS of 91%, whereas it was 38% in those with stage I IDC and invasive recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with DCIS that recur can be salvaged. For the small subgroup of patients who recur with invasive breast cancer, survival is similar to that of patients with stage IIA IDC.
Authors: Mathias Worni; Igor Akushevich; Rachel Greenup; Deba Sarma; Marc D Ryser; Evan R Myers; E Shelley Hwang Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Irene L Wapnir; James J Dignam; Bernard Fisher; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Stephanie R Land; Richard G Margolese; Sandra M Swain; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: I Kong; S A Narod; C Taylor; L Paszat; R Saskin; S Nofech-Moses; D Thiruchelvam; W Hanna; J P Pignol; S Sengupta; L Elavathil; P A Jani; S J Done; S Metcalfe; E Rakovitch Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: A K Witkiewicz; D W Cox; D Rivadeneira; A E Ertel; P Fortina; G F Schwartz; E S Knudsen Journal: Oncogene Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Richard J Lee; Laura A Vallow; Sarah A McLaughlin; Katherine S Tzou; Stephanie L Hines; Jennifer L Peterson Journal: Int J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-07-18