Megan E Miller1,2, Shirin Muhsen1,3, Emily C Zabor4, Jessica Flynn4, Cristina Olcese1, Dilip Giri5, Kimberly J Van Zee1, Melissa Pilewskie6. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Clemenceau Medical Center/Johns Hopkins International, Beirut, Lebanon. 4. Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. pilewskm@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is a risk factor for breast cancer, but the effect of LCIS found in association with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is unknown. In this study, we compared contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rates among women with DCIS with or without synchronous ipsilateral LCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: DCIS patients undergoing BCS from 2000 to 2011 with a contralateral breast at risk were stratified by the presence or absence of synchronous ipsilateral LCIS with the index DCIS (DCIS + LCIS vs. DCIS). Those with contralateral, bilateral, or prior ipsilateral LCIS were excluded. Associations of patient, tumor, and treatment factors with CBC and IBTR were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1888 patients identified, 1475 (78%) had DCIS and 413 (22%) had DCIS + LCIS. At median follow-up of 7.2 (range 0-17) years, 307 patients had a subsequent first breast event; 207 IBTR and 100 CBC. The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was similar in both groups: 15.0% vs. 14.2% (log-rank, p = 0.8) for DCIS + LCIS vs. DCIS, respectively. The 10-year cumulative incidence of CBC was greater in the DCIS + LCIS group: 10.9% vs. 6.1% for DCIS (log-rank, p < 0.001). After adjustment for other factors, CBC risk remained higher in DCIS + LCIS compared with DCIS (hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.36-3.11, p = 0.001); there was no significant difference in IBTR risk. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DCIS alone, DCIS + LCIS is associated with similar IBTR risk but double the risk of CBC. This finding should inform treatment decisions, in particular regarding endocrine therapy for risk reduction.
BACKGROUND:Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is a risk factor for breast cancer, but the effect of LCIS found in association with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is unknown. In this study, we compared contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rates among women with DCIS with or without synchronous ipsilateral LCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: DCIS patients undergoing BCS from 2000 to 2011 with a contralateral breast at risk were stratified by the presence or absence of synchronous ipsilateral LCIS with the index DCIS (DCIS + LCIS vs. DCIS). Those with contralateral, bilateral, or prior ipsilateral LCIS were excluded. Associations of patient, tumor, and treatment factors with CBC and IBTR were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1888 patients identified, 1475 (78%) had DCIS and 413 (22%) had DCIS + LCIS. At median follow-up of 7.2 (range 0-17) years, 307 patients had a subsequent first breast event; 207 IBTR and 100 CBC. The 10-year cumulative incidence of IBTR was similar in both groups: 15.0% vs. 14.2% (log-rank, p = 0.8) for DCIS + LCIS vs. DCIS, respectively. The 10-year cumulative incidence of CBC was greater in the DCIS + LCIS group: 10.9% vs. 6.1% for DCIS (log-rank, p < 0.001). After adjustment for other factors, CBC risk remained higher in DCIS + LCIS compared with DCIS (hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.36-3.11, p = 0.001); there was no significant difference in IBTR risk. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DCIS alone, DCIS + LCIS is associated with similar IBTR risk but double the risk of CBC. This finding should inform treatment decisions, in particular regarding endocrine therapy for risk reduction.
Authors: D Craig Allred; Stewart J Anderson; Soonmyung Paik; D Lawrence Wickerham; Iris D Nagtegaal; Sandra M Swain; Elefetherios P Mamounas; Thomas B Julian; Charles E Geyer; Joseph P Costantino; Stephanie R Land; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Linda J Adepoju; W Fraser Symmans; Gildy V Babiera; S Eva Singletary; Banu Arun; Nour Sneige; Lajos Pusztai; Thomas A Buchholz; Aysegul Sahin; Kelly K Hunt; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Merrick I Ross; Frederick C Ames; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Laura C Collins; Ninah Achacoso; Reina Haque; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Suzanne W Fletcher; Charles P Quesenberry; Stuart J Schnitt; Laurel A Habel Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Hazel B Nichols; Amy Berrington de González; James V Lacey; Philip S Rosenberg; William F Anderson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Meghan R Flanagan; Mara H Rendi; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Kristine E Calhoun; Kenneth W Gow; Sara H Javid Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Irene L Wapnir; James J Dignam; Bernard Fisher; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Stephanie R Land; Richard G Margolese; Sandra M Swain; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Faina Nakhlis; Fisher D Katlin; Samantha C Grossmith; Ashley DiPasquale; Beth T Harrison; Stuart J Schnitt; Tari A King Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.339