Shirin Muhsen1, Andrea V Barrio1, Megan Miller1, Cristina Olcese1, Sujata Patil2, Monica Morrow1, Kimberly J Van Zee3. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. vanzeek@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are concerns, especially for women with low-volume, screen-detected DCIS. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes for such patients. METHODS: Women who had minimal-volume DCIS (mDCIS, defined as DCIS diagnosed by core biopsy but with no residual disease on the surgical excision) treated with breast-conserving surgery from 1990 to 2011 were identified. Ipsilateral and contralateral breast events (IBE and CBE) were compared by competing-risk (CR) analysis. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates and log-rank tests were used to evaluate covariates. RESULTS: The study identified 290 cases of mDCIS. The median age of the patients was 53 years. Radiation therapy (RT) was performed for 27.6% and endocrine therapy for 16.2% of the patients. The median follow-up period was 6.8 years. Overall, the IBE rates were 4.3% at 5 years and 12.3% at 10 years. Among the women not receiving RT, the 5- and 10-year IBE rates (5.4 and 14.5%) were higher than the CBE rates (1.8 and 2.7%). Among those receiving RT, the IBE rates (1.5 and 6.0%) were lower than the CBE rates (4.1 and 15.6%). The women receiving RT trended toward significantly lower IBE rates (p = 0.07). Age, grade, and endocrine therapy were not significantly associated with IBE risk. CONCLUSIONS: Among the patients with mDCIS who did not receive RT, the IBE risk was substantially higher than the CBE risk, demonstrating that even DCIS of very low volume is associated with clinically relevant disease. The finding that the IBE risk was greater than the CBE risk supports current strategies that treat DCIS as a precursor rather than a risk marker. Women with mDCIS are not at negligible risk for IBE in the absence of adjuvant therapy.
BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are concerns, especially for women with low-volume, screen-detected DCIS. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes for such patients. METHODS:Women who had minimal-volume DCIS (mDCIS, defined as DCIS diagnosed by core biopsy but with no residual disease on the surgical excision) treated with breast-conserving surgery from 1990 to 2011 were identified. Ipsilateral and contralateral breast events (IBE and CBE) were compared by competing-risk (CR) analysis. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates and log-rank tests were used to evaluate covariates. RESULTS: The study identified 290 cases of mDCIS. The median age of the patients was 53 years. Radiation therapy (RT) was performed for 27.6% and endocrine therapy for 16.2% of the patients. The median follow-up period was 6.8 years. Overall, the IBE rates were 4.3% at 5 years and 12.3% at 10 years. Among the women not receiving RT, the 5- and 10-year IBE rates (5.4 and 14.5%) were higher than the CBE rates (1.8 and 2.7%). Among those receiving RT, the IBE rates (1.5 and 6.0%) were lower than the CBE rates (4.1 and 15.6%). The women receiving RT trended toward significantly lower IBE rates (p = 0.07). Age, grade, and endocrine therapy were not significantly associated with IBE risk. CONCLUSIONS: Among the patients with mDCIS who did not receive RT, the IBE risk was substantially higher than the CBE risk, demonstrating that even DCIS of very low volume is associated with clinically relevant disease. The finding that the IBE risk was greater than the CBE risk supports current strategies that treat DCIS as a precursor rather than a risk marker. Women with mDCIS are not at negligible risk for IBE in the absence of adjuvant therapy.
Authors: Daniel X Choi; Anne A Eaton; Cristina Olcese; Sujata Patil; Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Reena S Cecchini; Walter M Cronin; Andre Robidoux; Therese B Bevers; Maureen T Kavanah; James N Atkins; Richard G Margolese; Carolyn D Runowicz; Joan M James; Leslie G Ford; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lawrence J Solin; Robert Gray; Lorie L Hughes; William C Wood; Mary Ann Lowen; Sunil S Badve; Frederick L Baehner; James N Ingle; Edith A Perez; Abram Recht; Joseph A Sparano; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michaela Prochazka; Per Hall; Giovanna Gagliardi; Fredrik Granath; Bo N Nilsson; Peter G Shields; Meredith Tennis; Kamila Czene Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Rahul Roychoudhuri; David Robinson; Venkata Putcha; Jack Cuzick; Sarah Darby; Henrik Møller Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 4.430
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: Claudia J C Meurs; Joost van Rosmalen; Marian B E Menke-Pluijmers; Bert P M Ter Braak; Linda de Munck; Sabine Siesling; Pieter J Westenend Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Fernando A Angarita; Robert Brumer; Matthew Castelo; Nestor F Esnaola; Stephen B Edge; Kazuaki Takabe Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.575