BACKGROUND: The prevalence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and the marked variability in patterns of care highlight the need for comparative effectiveness research. We sought to quantify the tradeoffs among alternative management strategies for DCIS with respect to disease outcomes and breast preservation. METHODS: We developed a disease simulation model integrating data from the published literature to simulate the clinical events after six treatments (lumpectomy alone, lumpectomy with radiation, lumpectomy with radiation and tamoxifen, lumpectomy with tamoxifen, and mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction) for women with newly diagnosed DCIS. Outcomes included disease-free, invasive disease-free, and overall survival and breast preservation. RESULTS: For a cohort of 1 million simulated women aged 45 years at diagnosis, both mastectomy and lumpectomy with radiation and tamoxifen were associated with a 12-month improvement in overall survival relative to lumpectomy alone. Adding radiation therapy to lumpectomy resulted in a 6-month improvement in overall survival but decreased long-term breast-preservation outcomes (likelihood of lifetime breast preservation = 0.781 vs 0.843 for lumpectomy alone). This decrement with radiation therapy was mitigated by the addition of tamoxifen (likelihood of lifetime breast preservation = 0.846). CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival benefits of the six management strategies for DCIS are within 1 year, suggesting that treatment decisions can be informed by the patient's preference for breast preservation and disutility for recurrence. Our delineation of personalized outcomes for each strategy can help patients understand the implications of their treatment choice, so their decisions may reflect their own personal values and help improve the quality of care for patients with DCIS.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and the marked variability in patterns of care highlight the need for comparative effectiveness research. We sought to quantify the tradeoffs among alternative management strategies for DCIS with respect to disease outcomes and breast preservation. METHODS: We developed a disease simulation model integrating data from the published literature to simulate the clinical events after six treatments (lumpectomy alone, lumpectomy with radiation, lumpectomy with radiation and tamoxifen, lumpectomy with tamoxifen, and mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction) for women with newly diagnosed DCIS. Outcomes included disease-free, invasive disease-free, and overall survival and breast preservation. RESULTS: For a cohort of 1 million simulated women aged 45 years at diagnosis, both mastectomy and lumpectomy with radiation and tamoxifen were associated with a 12-month improvement in overall survival relative to lumpectomy alone. Adding radiation therapy to lumpectomy resulted in a 6-month improvement in overall survival but decreased long-term breast-preservation outcomes (likelihood of lifetime breast preservation = 0.781 vs 0.843 for lumpectomy alone). This decrement with radiation therapy was mitigated by the addition of tamoxifen (likelihood of lifetime breast preservation = 0.846). CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival benefits of the six management strategies for DCIS are within 1 year, suggesting that treatment decisions can be informed by the patient's preference for breast preservation and disutility for recurrence. Our delineation of personalized outcomes for each strategy can help patients understand the implications of their treatment choice, so their decisions may reflect their own personal values and help improve the quality of care for patients with DCIS.
Authors: Jonathan Fong; Emil D Kurniawan; Allison K Rose; Arlene Mou; John P Collins; Julie A Miller; G Bruce Mann Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Laura A Lee; Melvin J Silverstein; Cathie T Chung; Heather Macdonald; Premal Sanghavi; Melinda Epstein; Dennis R Holmes; Howard Silberman; Wei Ye; Michael D Lagios Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lia M Halasz; Meera Sreedhara; Yu-Hui Chen; Jennifer R Bellon; Rinaa S Punglia; Julia S Wong; Jay R Harris; Jane E Brock Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Annette M Molinaro; Mona L Gauthier; Hal K Berman; Fred Waldman; James Bennington; Henry Sanchez; Cynthia Jimenez; Kim Stewart; Karen Chew; Britt-Marie Ljung; Thea D Tlsty Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Grace L Smith; Deron H Galusha; Justin E Bekelman; Cary P Gross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Ivana Sestak; Sarah E Pinder; Ian O Ellis; Sharon Forsyth; Nigel J Bundred; John F Forbes; Hugh Bishop; Ian S Fentiman; William D George Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Caprice C Greenberg; Laurel A Habel; Melissa E Hughes; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Ninah Achacoso; Luana Acton; Deborah Schrag; Wei Jiang; Stephen Edge; Jane C Weeks; Rinaa S Punglia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Renée S J M Schmitz; Erica A Wilthagen; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Marja van Oirsouw; Ellen Verschuur; Thomas Lynch; Rinaa S Punglia; E Shelley Hwang; Jelle Wesseling; Marjanka K Schmidt; Eveline M A Bleiker; Ellen G Engelhardt Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Rachel Y Lei; Dennis L Carter; Andrew G Antell; Molly A Nowels; Shannon P Tole; John P Bennett; Michelle Turner; Frederick L Baehner; Charles E Leonard Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-11-01
Authors: Hazel B Nichols; Erin J A Bowles; Jessica Islam; Lawrence Madziwa; Til Stürmer; Diem-Thy Tran; Diana S M Buist Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-01-14