Skip to main content
Log in

Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: a New Phenotype Classification System and its Relation to Prognosis

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a study of invasive breast cancer, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) revealed clustering of eight pathobiological variables. Two different phenotypes were distinguished by an index calculated on the basis of the variables (histologic grade, necrosis, lymphoid infiltration, number of mitosis and expression of c-erbB-2, p53, progesterone receptor and Bcl-2). Phenotype A lesions share most of the features of normal breast tissue. Phenotype B looks more malignant, has a higher early recurrence rate and is more frequently seen in younger patients. Our aim was to see if ductal breast carcinoma in situ (DCIS) could be divided into the same phenotypes. One hundred and eighty DCIS were investigated. Association between the eight variables was studied in 2 × 2 models. The phenotype index was calculated by summing weights for the variables in the MCA. All variables were associated, except Bcl-2. DCIS was divided in two phenotypes. Thirty-three tumours were Phenotype A and 147 Phenotype B. The mean age at diagnosis was 65.5 and 58.4 years for Phenotypes A and B, respectively (p = 0.0012). No difference regarding local relapse free survival was seen. Two phenotypes were distinguished in DCIS, similar to invasive breast cancer. In an earlier study, 45% of the invasive cancers were classified as Phenotype B. In this study, 82% of DCIS were Phenotype B. This may indicate that invasive breast cancer of Phenotype B is derived from DCIS of Phenotype B. The distribution of DCIS phenotypes with a small proportion of Phenotype A DCIS may be due to that Phenotype A DCIS is less likely to be detected by mammography, or that some invasive breast cancers of Phenotype A progress to invasiveness without passing the in situ phase.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Silverstein MJ, Waisman JR, Gamagami P, Gierson ED, Colburn WJ, Rosser RJ, Gordon PS, Lewinsky BS, Fingerhut A: Intraductal carcinoma of the breast (208 cases). Clinical factors influencing treatment choice. Cancer 66: 102–108, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lennington WJ, Jensen RA, Dalton LW, Page DL: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Heterogeneity of individual lesions. Cancer 73: 118–124, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, Rose MR: Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer 63: 618–624, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  4. Meyer JS: Cell kinetics of histologic variants of in situ breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 7: 171–180, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  5. Basset P, Wolf C, Chambon P: Expression of the stromelysin-3 gene in fibroblastic cells of invasive carcinomas of the breast and other human tissues: a review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 24: 185–193, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bartkova J, Barnes DM, Millis RR, Gullick WJ: Immunohistochemical demonstration of c-erbB-2 protein in mammary ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 21: 1164–1167, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  7. Van der Vijver MJ, Peterse JL, Mooi WJ, Wisman P, Lomans J, Dalesio O, Nusse R: NEU-protein overexpression in breast cancer. Association with comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ and limited prognostic value in stage II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 319: 1239–1245, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR, Eusebi V, Faverly D, van de Vijver MJ, Zafrani B: Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Sem Diagn Pathol 11:167–180, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  9. Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, Colburn WJ, Barth A, Gierson ED, Lewinsky B, Gamagami P, Slamon DJ: Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet 345: 1154–1157, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  10. European, Community: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammographic Screening. 2nd edn, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1996

  11. Wärnberg F, Nordgren H, Bergh J, Holmberg L: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast from a population defined cohort: an evaluation of new histopathological classification systems. Eur J Cancer 5: 714–720, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ménard S, Casalini P, Tomasic G, Pilotti S, Cascinelli N, Bufalino R, Peronne F, Longhi C, Rilke F, Colnaghi I: Pathobiologic identification of two distinct breast carcinoma subsets with diverging clinical behaviours. Breast Cancer Res Treat 55: 169–177, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  13. Elston CW, Ellis IO: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long term follow up. Histopathol 19: 403–410, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gupta SK, Douglas-Jones AG, Fenn N, Morgan JM, Mansel RE: The clinical behavior of breast carcinoma is probably determined at the preinvasive stage (ductal carcinoma in situ). Cancer 80: 1740–1745, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  15. Steeg PS, Clare SE, Lawrence JA, Zhou Q:Molecular analysis of premalignant and carcinoma in situ lesions of the human breast. Am J Pathol 149: 733–738, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wazer DE, Gage I, Homer MJ, Krosnick SH, Schmid C: Age-related differences in patients with nonpalpable breast carcinomasl. Cancer 78: 1432–1437, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  17. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA, Fluge O, Pergamenschicov A, Williams C, Zhu SX, Lonning PE, Borresen-Dale A-L, Brown PO, Botstein D: Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406: 747–752, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wärnberg F, Nordgren H, Bergkvist L, Holmberg L: Tumour markers in breast carcinoma correlate with grade rather than with invasiveness. Br J Cancer 85: 869–874, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR: Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 172: 235–241, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  20. Iglehart JD, Kerns B-J, Huper G, Marks JR: Maintenance of DNA content and erbB-2 alterations in intraductal and invasive phases of mammary cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 34: 253–263, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  21. Douglas-Jones AG, Gupta SK, Attanoos RL, Morgan JM, Mansel RE: A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): correlation with grade of associated invasive carcinoma. Histopathol 29: 397–409, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  22. Buerger H, Otterbach F, Simon R, Poremba C, Diallo R, Decker T, Riethdorf L, Brinkschmidt C, Dockhorn-Dworniczak B, Boecker W: Comparative genomic hybridization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast - evidence of multiple genetic pathways. J Pathol 187: 396–402, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L, Robanus-Maandag EC, Bosch CAJ, Duval C, Pilotti S, van de Vijver MJ: Histological type and marker expression of the primary tumour compared with its local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer 84: 539–544, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  24. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Martino S, Lewinsky BS, Craig PH, Beron PJ, Gamagami P, Waisman JR: Outcome after invasive local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol 16: 1367–1373, 1998

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wärnberg, F., Casalini, P., Nordgren, H. et al. Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: a New Phenotype Classification System and its Relation to Prognosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 73, 215–222 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015816406078

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015816406078

Keywords

Navigation