Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying ductal carcinoma in situ cases not requiring surgery to exclude postoperative upgrade to invasive ductal carcinoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Prospective cohort studies are being conducted worldwide to identify a low-grade group of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) that does not require surgery. However, to do this, it is necessary to predict which cases, diagnosed with preoperative DCIS, will be upgraded to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) after surgery.

Methods

In this study, we evaluated the frequency of IDC upgrades in patients who were preoperatively diagnosed with DCIS at Showa University using the criteria of ongoing clinical trials. We divided our cases into those that could be enrolled in the ongoing trial and those that could not. Moreover, we evaluated whether CNB, which is allowed only in Japanese clinical trials, is related to the IDC mixture.

Results

There were 211 (52.1%) cases that matched the criteria of the U.K. and Netherlands trials, of which 62 (29.4%) were upgraded to IDC. A total of 113 (27.9%) cases met the criteria for clinical trials in Japan and the U.S., 25 (22.1%) of which were upgraded to IDC and 47 (34.6%) which matched when considering biopsy methods. The number of cases upgraded to IDC decreased to four (8.5%).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that there were a certain number of mixed IDC. We will pay attention to the results of ongoing clinical trials regarding how the presence of this mixed IDC affects the prognosis in non-surgery cases. Careful follow-up is recommended for non-surgical treatment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:170–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1546–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ernster VL, Barclay J. Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma. JNCI Monogr. 1997;1997:151–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kurebayashi J, Miyoshi Y, Ishikawa T, Saji S, Sugie T, Suzuki T, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of breast cancer and trends in the management of breast cancer patients in Japan: based on the breast cancer registry of the Japanese breast cancer society between 2004 and 2011. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:235–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1438–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bleyer A, Welch H. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998–2005.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kanbayashi C, Iwata H. Current approach and future perspective for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2017;47:671–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Erbas B, Provenzano E, Armes J, Gertig D. The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;97:135–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lakhani SR. The transition from hyperplasia to invasive carcinoma of the breast. J Pathol. 1999;187:272–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP, Micheli A, Conti A, Riva C, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:223–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Welch HG, Black WC. Using autopsy series to estimate the disease “reservoir” for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: how much more breast cancer can we find? Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:1023–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P. Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:888–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S, Aydogan F, DeSantis S, Barry WT, et al. Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:739–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Skinner VP, Dif N, et al. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ—the LORD study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, Wallis M, Bartlett JM, Brookes C, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen-detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:2296–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kanbayashi C, Thompson AM, Hwang SS, Partridge AH, Rea DW, Wesseling J, et al. The international collaboration of active surveillance trials for low-risk DCIS (LORIS, LORD, COMET, LORETTA). J Clin Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.TPS603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, Frank E, Pinto D, Basila D, et al. The COMET (comparison of operative versus monitoring and endocrine therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Phil Evans W, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology. 2001;218:497–502.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mittendorf EA, Arciero CA, Gutchell V, Hooke J, Shriver CD. Core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: an indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Curr Surg. 2005;62:253–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deurloo EE, Sriram JD, Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, Wesseling J, Rutgers EJ, et al. MRI of the breast in patients with DCIS to exclude the presence of invasive disease. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1504–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Park AY, Gweon HM, Son EJ, Yoo M, Kim JA, Youk JH. Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed at US-guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy for breast mass: preoperative predictors of invasive breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:654–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Narod S, Thiruchelvam D, Saskin R, et al. HER2/neu and Ki-67 expression predict non-invasive recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:1160–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Poulakaki N, Makris G-M, Papanota A-M, Marineli F, Marinelis A, Battista M-J, et al. Ki-67 expression as a factor predicting recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:157-67.e6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, Sweetland H, Stevens G, Mansel RE. Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ?: analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:311–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee JW, Han W, Ko E, Cho J, Kim EK, Jung SY, et al. Sonographic lesion size of ductal carcinoma in situ as a preoperative predictor for the presence of an invasive focus. J Surg Oncol. 2008;98:15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Meijnen P, Oldenburg HS, Loo CE, Nieweg OE, Peterse JL, Rutgers EJ. Risk of invasion and axillary lymph node metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core-needle biopsy. Br J Surg. 2007;94:952–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Yen TWF, Hunt KK, Ross MI, Mirza NQ, Babiera GV, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:516–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, Gnant M, Dubsky P, Loibl S, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen international expert consensus conference on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, Marinovich ML, French JR, Macaskill P, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2011;260:119–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Osako T, Iwase T, Ushijima M, Horii R, Fukami Y, Kimura K, et al. Incidence and prediction of invasive disease and nodal metastasis in preoperatively diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Sci. 2014;105:576–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang SY, Shamliyan T, Virnig BA, Kane R. Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:1–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Showa University Hospital, 1-5-8, Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8666, Japan

    Sayuka Nakayama, Hiroko Masuda, Takashi Kuwayama, Rikako Hashimoto, Kanae Taruno, Sadako Akashi-Tanaka & Seigo Nakamura

  2. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Sakiko Miura

  3. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Terumasa Sawada

Authors
  1. Sayuka Nakayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroko Masuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sakiko Miura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takashi Kuwayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rikako Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kanae Taruno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Terumasa Sawada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sadako Akashi-Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Seigo Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sayuka Nakayama.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakayama, S., Masuda, H., Miura, S. et al. Identifying ductal carcinoma in situ cases not requiring surgery to exclude postoperative upgrade to invasive ductal carcinoma. Breast Cancer 29, 610–617 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01338-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01338-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation