BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the most common treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); however, how often women experience subsequent diagnostic evaluations over time is not known. METHODS: We identified 2948 women with DCIS who were treated with BCS from 1990 to 2001 and followed for up to 10 years at three integrated health-care delivery systems. We calculated the percentages of diagnostic mammograms and ipsilateral invasive procedures following the initial breast excision to treat DCIS, estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of these procedures, and determined hazard ratios for both types of procedures with Cox regression modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Over 10 years, 907 women (30.8%) had 1422 diagnostic mammograms and 1813 (61.5%) had 2305 ipsilateral invasive procedures. Diagnostic mammograms occurred in 7.3% of women in the first 6 months and continued at a median annual rate of 4.3%. Ipsilateral invasive procedures occurred in 51.5% of women in the first 6 months and continued at a median annual rate of 3.1%. The estimated 10-year cumulative risk of having at least one diagnostic mammogram after initial DCIS excision was 41.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 38.5% to 43.5%); at least one invasive procedure, 65.7% (95% CI = 63.7% to 67.8%); and either event, 76.1% (95% CI = 74.1% to 78.1%). Excluding events in the first 6 months following initial DCIS excision, corresponding risks were 36.4% (95% CI = 33.8% to 39.0%) for diagnostic mammograms, 30.4% (95% CI = 26.9% to 33.8%) for invasive procedures, and 49.5% (95% CI = 45.6% to 53.5%) for either event. CONCLUSIONS: Women with DCIS treated with BCS continue to have diagnostic and invasive breast procedures in the conserved breast over an extended period. The frequency of ongoing diagnostic breast evaluations should be included in discussions about treatment.
BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the most common treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); however, how often women experience subsequent diagnostic evaluations over time is not known. METHODS: We identified 2948 women with DCIS who were treated with BCS from 1990 to 2001 and followed for up to 10 years at three integrated health-care delivery systems. We calculated the percentages of diagnostic mammograms and ipsilateral invasive procedures following the initial breast excision to treat DCIS, estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of these procedures, and determined hazard ratios for both types of procedures with Cox regression modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Over 10 years, 907 women (30.8%) had 1422 diagnostic mammograms and 1813 (61.5%) had 2305 ipsilateral invasive procedures. Diagnostic mammograms occurred in 7.3% of women in the first 6 months and continued at a median annual rate of 4.3%. Ipsilateral invasive procedures occurred in 51.5% of women in the first 6 months and continued at a median annual rate of 3.1%. The estimated 10-year cumulative risk of having at least one diagnostic mammogram after initial DCIS excision was 41.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 38.5% to 43.5%); at least one invasive procedure, 65.7% (95% CI = 63.7% to 67.8%); and either event, 76.1% (95% CI = 74.1% to 78.1%). Excluding events in the first 6 months following initial DCIS excision, corresponding risks were 36.4% (95% CI = 33.8% to 39.0%) for diagnostic mammograms, 30.4% (95% CI = 26.9% to 33.8%) for invasive procedures, and 49.5% (95% CI = 45.6% to 53.5%) for either event. CONCLUSIONS:Women with DCIS treated with BCS continue to have diagnostic and invasive breast procedures in the conserved breast over an extended period. The frequency of ongoing diagnostic breast evaluations should be included in discussions about treatment.
Authors: Nancy K Janz; Mahasin Mujahid; Paula M Lantz; Angela Fagerlin; Barbara Salem; Monica Morrow; Dennis Deapen; Steven J Katz Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: B Fisher; J Dignam; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; J Costantino; W Poller; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; R Margolese; N Dimitrov; M Kavanah Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edward H Wagner; Sarah M Greene; Gene Hart; Terry S Field; Suzanne Fletcher; Ann M Geiger; Lisa J Herrinton; Mark C Hornbrook; Christine C Johnson; Judy Mouchawar; Sharon J Rolnick; Victor J Stevens; Stephen H Taplin; Dennis Tolsma; Thomas M Vogt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: B Fisher; J Dignam; N Wolmark; D L Wickerham; E R Fisher; E Mamounas; R Smith; M Begovic; N V Dimitrov; R G Margolese; C G Kardinal; M T Kavanah; L Fehrenbacher; R H Oishi Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-06-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B Fisher; J Costantino; C Redmond; E Fisher; R Margolese; N Dimitrov; N Wolmark; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; L Ore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Terry S Field; Jackie Cernieux; Diana Buist; Ann Geiger; Lois Lamerato; Gene Hart; Don Bachman; Rick Krajenta; Sarah Greene; Mark C Hornbrook; Gary Ansell; Lisa Herrinton; George Reed Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-01-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: D Curran; J P van Dongen; N K Aaronson; G Kiebert; I S Fentiman; F Mignolet; H Bartelink Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jean H E Yong; Claude Nadeau; William M Flanagan; Andrew J Coldman; Keiko Asakawa; Rochelle Garner; Natalie Fitzgerald; Martin J Yaffe; Anthony B Miller Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.677