Literature DB >> 26039049

Survival Benefit of Breast Surgery for Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Yasuaki Sagara1, Melissa Anne Mallory1, Stephanie Wong2, Fatih Aydogan3, Stephen DeSantis4, William T Barry5, Mehra Golshan1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: While the prevalence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast has increased substantially following the introduction of breast-screening methods, the clinical significance of early detection and treatment for DCIS remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade DCIS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from October 9, 2014, to January 15, 2015, at the Dana-Farber/Brigham Women's Cancer Center. Between 1988 and 2011, 57,222 eligible cases of DCIS with known nuclear grade and surgery status were identified. EXPOSURES: Patients were divided into surgery and nonsurgery groups. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Propensity score weighting was used to balance patient backgrounds between groups. A log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess factors related to overall and breast cancer-specific survival.
RESULTS: Of 57,222 cases of DCIS identified in this study, 1169 cases (2.0%) were managed without surgery and 56,053 cases (98.0%) were managed with surgery. With a median follow-up of 72 months from diagnosis, there were 576 breast cancer-specific deaths (1.0%). The weighted 10-year breast cancer-specific survival was 93.4% for the nonsurgery group and 98.5% for the surgery group (log-rank test, P < .001). The degree of survival benefit among those managed surgically differed according to nuclear grade (P = .003). For low-grade DCIS, the weighted 10-year breast cancer-specific survival of the nonsurgery group was 98.8% and that of the surgery group was 98.6% (P = .95). Multivariable analysis showed there was no significant difference in the weighted hazard ratios of breast cancer-specific survival between the surgery and nonsurgery groups for low-grade DCIS. The weighted hazard ratios of intermediate- and high-grade DCIS were significantly different (low grade: hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.21-3.52; intermediate grade: hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14-0.42; and high grade: hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.11-0.23) and similar results were seen for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The survival benefit of performing breast surgery for low-grade DCIS was lower than that for intermediate- or high-grade DCIS. A prospective clinical trial is warranted to investigate the feasibility of active surveillance for the management of low-grade DCIS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26039049     DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.0876

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  40 in total

1.  An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  R G Blanks; R M Given-Wilson; S L Cohen; J Patnick; R J Alison; M G Wallis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of breast: update 2019.

Authors:  Sunil S Badve; Yesim Gökmen-Polar
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 5.306

3.  Comparison of detectability of breast cancer by abbreviated breast MRI based on diffusion-weighted images and postcontrast MRI.

Authors:  Takayuki Yamada; Yoshihide Kanemaki; Satoko Okamoto; Yasuo Nakajima
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 2.374

4.  Value of breast MRI for patients with a biopsy showing atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH).

Authors:  Keiko Tsuchiya; Naoko Mori; David V Schacht; Deepa Sheth; Gregory S Karczmar; Gillian M Newstead; Hiroyuki Abe
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Computational Risk Analysis.

Authors:  Marc D Ryser; Mathias Worni; Elizabeth L Turner; Jeffrey R Marks; Rick Durrett; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Cancer Outcomes in DCIS Patients Without Locoregional Treatment.

Authors:  Marc D Ryser; Donald L Weaver; Fengmin Zhao; Mathias Worni; Lars J Grimm; Roman Gulati; Ruth Etzioni; Terry Hyslop; Sandra J Lee; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Computer-aided heterogeneity analysis in breast MR imaging assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ: Correlating histologic grade and receptor status.

Authors:  Shinn-Huey S Chou; Eva C Gombos; Sona A Chikarmane; Catherine S Giess; Jagadeesan Jayender
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeroen J van den Broek; Xiaoxue Li; Harald Weedon-Fekjær; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; Xuelin Huang; Donald L Weaver; Elizabeth S Burnside; Rinaa S Punglia; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Risk stratification of ductal carcinoma in situ using whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient.

Authors:  Jin You Kim; Jin Joo Kim; Ji Won Lee; Nam Kyung Lee; Geewon Lee; Taewoo Kang; Heesung Park; Yo Han Son; Robert Grimm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.