BACKGROUND: For DCIS patients eligible for breast conservation treatment (BCT), it remains unclear whether presenting with physical signs/symptoms (Phys) confers a worse long-term prognosis compared to mammographically detected DCIS (Mam). METHODS: We collected data on 669 DCIS patients treated with BCT from 1974 to 2007 of whom 80 were identified as category "Phys" and 589 were in category "Mam." RESULTS: Treatment parameters (i.e., the RT dose delivered, boost, rates of stereotactic biopsy, re-excision, node dissection) did not differ significantly between the two cohorts (p = NS). At a 60-month median follow-up, significant associations included younger age at presentation (p < 0.001), non-white race (p = 0.041), larger tumor size (p = 0.002), more 1°/2° papillary histology (1°, p = 0.001; 2°, p = 0.005) for the Phys cohort. As expected, mammograms were more likely to show mass/nodules/asymmetrical densities and less likely to show microcalcifications for the Phys versus Mam group (p < 0.0001). There were no differences in family history, multifocality, grade, necrosis, or residual disease at re-excision, nodal involvement, status of margins, or ER/PR/HER-2 between the cohorts. The local relapse-free survival was similar at 5 years (100 vs. 96.9 %, p = 0.116) and 10 years (96.2 vs. 96.2 %, p = 0.906), with no significant overall survival difference at 10 years (97.5 vs. 95.9 %, p = 0.364) between the Phys and Mam patients, respectively. On multivariate analysis, presentation was not an independent predictor of local relapse-free survival or overall survival when accounting for age, race, tumor size, mammogram appearance, and adjuvant hormone treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that although some clinicopathological differences exist between DCIS patients presenting with physical signs/symptoms compared with those presenting with mammographically detected disease, long-term outcomes are similar for patients appropriately selected for BCT.
BACKGROUND: For DCIS patients eligible for breast conservation treatment (BCT), it remains unclear whether presenting with physical signs/symptoms (Phys) confers a worse long-term prognosis compared to mammographically detected DCIS (Mam). METHODS: We collected data on 669 DCIS patients treated with BCT from 1974 to 2007 of whom 80 were identified as category "Phys" and 589 were in category "Mam." RESULTS: Treatment parameters (i.e., the RT dose delivered, boost, rates of stereotactic biopsy, re-excision, node dissection) did not differ significantly between the two cohorts (p = NS). At a 60-month median follow-up, significant associations included younger age at presentation (p < 0.001), non-white race (p = 0.041), larger tumor size (p = 0.002), more 1°/2° papillary histology (1°, p = 0.001; 2°, p = 0.005) for the Phys cohort. As expected, mammograms were more likely to show mass/nodules/asymmetrical densities and less likely to show microcalcifications for the Phys versus Mam group (p < 0.0001). There were no differences in family history, multifocality, grade, necrosis, or residual disease at re-excision, nodal involvement, status of margins, or ER/PR/HER-2 between the cohorts. The local relapse-free survival was similar at 5 years (100 vs. 96.9 %, p = 0.116) and 10 years (96.2 vs. 96.2 %, p = 0.906), with no significant overall survival difference at 10 years (97.5 vs. 95.9 %, p = 0.364) between the Phys and Mampatients, respectively. On multivariate analysis, presentation was not an independent predictor of local relapse-free survival or overall survival when accounting for age, race, tumor size, mammogram appearance, and adjuvant hormone treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that although some clinicopathological differences exist between DCIS patients presenting with physical signs/symptoms compared with those presenting with mammographically detected disease, long-term outcomes are similar for patients appropriately selected for BCT.
Authors: Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hee Jung Shin; Hak Hee Kim; Sun Mi Kim; Gui Young Kwon; Gyungyub Gong; On Koo Cho Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nina Bijker; Philip Meijnen; Johannes L Peterse; Jan Bogaerts; Irène Van Hoorebeeck; Jean-Pierre Julien; Massimiliano Gennaro; Philippe Rouanet; Antoine Avril; Ian S Fentiman; Harry Bartelink; Emiel J Th Rutgers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-06-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Rakovitch; S Nofech-Mozes; W Hanna; S Narod; D Thiruchelvam; R Saskin; J Spayne; C Taylor; L Paszat Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Audree B Tadros; Benjamin D Smith; Yu Shen; Heather Lin; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Anthony Lucci; Carlos H Barcenas; Rosa F Hwang; Gaiane Rauch; Lumarie Santiago; Eric A Strom; Sarah M DeSnyder; Wei T Yang; Dalliah M Black; Constance T Albarracin; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Devon Livingston-Rosanoff; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Polly A Newcomb; Lee G Wilke Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Gaiane M Rauch; Brian P Hobbs; Henry M Kuerer; Marion E Scoggins; Ana P Benveniste; Young Mi Park; Abigail S Caudle; Patricia S Fox; Benjamin D Smith; Beatriz E Adrada; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Wei T Yang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 5.344