Marc D Ryser1, Mathias Worni1, Elizabeth L Turner1, Jeffrey R Marks1, Rick Durrett1, E Shelley Hwang2. 1. Department of Mathematics (MDR, RD) and Duke Global Health Institute (ELT), Duke University, Durham, NC; Division of Advanced Oncologic and GI Surgery (MDR, MW, ESH) and Division of Surgical Sciences (JRM), Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Berne University Hospital and University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland (MW); Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (ELT). 2. Department of Mathematics (MDR, RD) and Duke Global Health Institute (ELT), Duke University, Durham, NC; Division of Advanced Oncologic and GI Surgery (MDR, MW, ESH) and Division of Surgical Sciences (JRM), Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Berne University Hospital and University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland (MW); Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (ELT). shelley.hwang@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a noninvasive breast lesion with uncertain risk for invasive progression. Usual care (UC) for DCIS consists of treatment upon diagnosis, thus potentially overtreating patients with low propensity for progression. One strategy to reduce overtreatment is active surveillance (AS), whereby DCIS is treated only upon detection of invasive disease. Our goal was to perform a quantitative evaluation of outcomes following an AS strategy for DCIS. METHODS: Age-stratified, 10-year disease-specific cumulative mortality (DSCM) for AS was calculated using a computational risk projection model based upon published estimates for natural history parameters, and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data for outcomes. AS projections were compared with the DSCM for patients who received UC. To quantify the propagation of parameter uncertainty, a 95% projection range (PR) was computed, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Under the assumption that AS cannot outperform UC, the projected median differences in 10-year DSCM between AS and UC when diagnosed at ages 40, 55, and 70 years were 2.6% (PR = 1.4%-5.1%), 1.5% (PR = 0.5%-3.5%), and 0.6% (PR = 0.0%-2.4), respectively. Corresponding median numbers of patients needed to treat to avert one breast cancer death were 38.3 (PR = 19.7-69.9), 67.3 (PR = 28.7-211.4), and 157.2 (PR = 41.1-3872.8), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that the parameter with greatest impact on DSCM was the probability of understaging invasive cancer at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: AS could be a viable management strategy for carefully selected DCIS patients, particularly among older age groups and those with substantial competing mortality risks. The effectiveness of AS could be markedly improved by reducing the rate of understaging.
BACKGROUND:Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a noninvasive breast lesion with uncertain risk for invasive progression. Usual care (UC) for DCIS consists of treatment upon diagnosis, thus potentially overtreating patients with low propensity for progression. One strategy to reduce overtreatment is active surveillance (AS), whereby DCIS is treated only upon detection of invasive disease. Our goal was to perform a quantitative evaluation of outcomes following an AS strategy for DCIS. METHODS: Age-stratified, 10-year disease-specific cumulative mortality (DSCM) for AS was calculated using a computational risk projection model based upon published estimates for natural history parameters, and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data for outcomes. AS projections were compared with the DSCM for patients who received UC. To quantify the propagation of parameter uncertainty, a 95% projection range (PR) was computed, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Under the assumption that AS cannot outperform UC, the projected median differences in 10-year DSCM between AS and UC when diagnosed at ages 40, 55, and 70 years were 2.6% (PR = 1.4%-5.1%), 1.5% (PR = 0.5%-3.5%), and 0.6% (PR = 0.0%-2.4), respectively. Corresponding median numbers of patients needed to treat to avert one breast cancer death were 38.3 (PR = 19.7-69.9), 67.3 (PR = 28.7-211.4), and 157.2 (PR = 41.1-3872.8), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that the parameter with greatest impact on DSCM was the probability of understaging invasive cancer at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: AS could be a viable management strategy for carefully selected DCIS patients, particularly among older age groups and those with substantial competing mortality risks. The effectiveness of AS could be markedly improved by reducing the rate of understaging.
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: Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: L Nyström; L E Rutqvist; S Wall; A Lindgren; M Lindqvist; S Rydén; I Andersson; N Bjurstam; G Fagerberg; J Frisell Journal: Lancet Date: 1993-04-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Dennis G Fryback; Natasha K Stout; Marjorie A Rosenberg; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Vipat Kuruchittham; Patrick L Remington Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2006
Authors: Donald A Berry; Lurdes Inoue; Yu Shen; John Venier; Debbie Cohen; Melissa Bondy; Richard Theriault; Mark F Munsell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2006
Authors: Dorota Jakubowski Wisner; E Shelley Hwang; C Belinda Chang; Hilda H Tso; Bonnie N Joe; Juan N Lessing; Ying Lu; Nola M Hylton Journal: Breast J Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
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
Authors: Eileen Rakovitch; Sameer Parpia; Anne Koch; Laval Grimard; Hany Soliman; Christiaan Stevens; Francisco Perera; Iwa Kong; Senti Senthelal; Margaret Anthes; Ericka Wiebe; Jeffrey Cao; Mira Goldberg; Sally Smith; Luciana Spadafora; Timothy J Whelan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lars J Grimm; Marc D Ryser; Ann H Partridge; Alastair M Thompson; Jeremy S Thomas; Jelle Wesseling; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 5.344
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