Tawakalitu O Oseni1, Barbara L Smith1, Constance D Lehman2, Charmi A Vijapura2, Niveditha Pinnamaneni2, Manisha Bahl3. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. mbahl1@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are currently ongoing to determine the safety and efficacy of active surveillance (AS) versus usual care (surgical and radiation treatment) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This study aimed to determine upgrade rates of DCIS at needle biopsy to invasive carcinoma at surgery among women who meet the eligibility criteria for AS trials. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of consecutive women at an academic medical center with a diagnosis of DCIS at needle biopsy from 2007 to 2016. Medical records were reviewed for mode of presentation, imaging findings, biopsy pathology results, and surgical outcomes. Each patient with DCIS was evaluated for AS trial eligibility based on published criteria for the COMET, LORD, and LORIS trials. RESULTS: During a 10-year period, DCIS was diagnosed in 858 women (mean age 58 years; range 28-89 years). Of the 858 women, 498 (58%) were eligible for the COMET trial, 101 (11.8%) for the LORD trial, and 343 (40%) for the LORIS trial. The rates of upgrade to invasive carcinoma were 12% (60/498) for the COMET trial, 5% (5/101) for the LORD trial, and 11.1% (38/343) for the LORIS trial. The invasive carcinomas ranged from 0.2 to 20 mm, and all were node-negative. CONCLUSIONS: Women who meet the eligibility criteria for DCIS AS trials remain at risk for occult invasive carcinoma at presentation, with upgrade rates ranging from 5 to 12%. These findings suggest that more precise criteria are needed to ensure that women with invasive carcinoma are excluded from AS trials.
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are currently ongoing to determine the safety and efficacy of active surveillance (AS) versus usual care (surgical and radiation treatment) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This study aimed to determine upgrade rates of DCIS at needle biopsy to invasive carcinoma at surgery among women who meet the eligibility criteria for AS trials. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of consecutive women at an academic medical center with a diagnosis of DCIS at needle biopsy from 2007 to 2016. Medical records were reviewed for mode of presentation, imaging findings, biopsy pathology results, and surgical outcomes. Each patient with DCIS was evaluated for AS trial eligibility based on published criteria for the COMET, LORD, and LORIS trials. RESULTS: During a 10-year period, DCIS was diagnosed in 858 women (mean age 58 years; range 28-89 years). Of the 858 women, 498 (58%) were eligible for the COMET trial, 101 (11.8%) for the LORD trial, and 343 (40%) for the LORIS trial. The rates of upgrade to invasive carcinoma were 12% (60/498) for the COMET trial, 5% (5/101) for the LORD trial, and 11.1% (38/343) for the LORIS trial. The invasive carcinomas ranged from 0.2 to 20 mm, and all were node-negative. CONCLUSIONS:Women who meet the eligibility criteria for DCIS AS trials remain at risk for occult invasive carcinoma at presentation, with upgrade rates ranging from 5 to 12%. These findings suggest that more precise criteria are needed to ensure that women with invasive carcinoma are excluded from AS trials.
Authors: Meagan E Brennan; Robin M Turner; Stefano Ciatto; M Luke Marinovich; James R French; Petra Macaskill; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Adele Francis; Jeremy Thomas; Lesley Fallowfield; Matthew Wallis; John M S Bartlett; Cassandra Brookes; Tracy Roberts; Sarah Pirrie; Claire Gaunt; Jennie Young; Lucinda Billingham; David Dodwell; Andrew Hanby; Sarah E Pinder; Andrew Evans; Malcolm Reed; Valerie Jenkins; Lucy Matthews; Maggie Wilcox; Patricia Fairbrother; Sarah Bowden; Daniel Rea Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lotte E Elshof; Konstantinos Tryfonidis; Leen Slaets; A Elise van Leeuwen-Stok; Victoria P Skinner; Nicolas Dif; Ruud M Pijnappel; Nina Bijker; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Jelle Wesseling Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: E Shelley Hwang; Terry Hyslop; Thomas Lynch; Elizabeth Frank; Donna Pinto; Desiree Basila; Deborah Collyar; Antonia Bennett; Celia Kaplan; Shoshana Rosenberg; Alastair Thompson; Anna Weiss; Ann Partridge Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: J Bruce; A J Thornton; N W Scott; S Marfizo; R Powell; M Johnston; M Wells; S D Heys; A M Thompson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-07-31 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