Abstract
Purpose of Review
Standard treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is similar to that of invasive carcinoma. However, there is significant controversy regarding the true clinical implications of DCIS, and thus, the best management strategy. The aim of this review is to highlight relevant biology, diagnostic considerations, treatment options, and recent clinical trials.
Recent Findings
Outcomes are generally excellent with low recurrence rates and exceptional disease-specific survival. Outcomes can be predicted using various prognostic indicators and/or nomograms to guide treatment decisions. Ongoing clinical trials of active surveillance are based upon the argument that ipsilateral invasive recurrence is the most clinically meaningful endpoint. These trials seek to compare ipsilateral invasive cancer diagnoses between standard of care and close monitoring.
Summary
Recent trials have revealed the marked heterogeneity in the biology of DCIS, offering an opportunity to de-escalate therapy for women at lowest risk for progression. DCIS also presents an ideal setting in which to test novel prevention agents. Future care of patients with DCIS will include biomarker-based risk assessment in order to better individualize treatment to biologic risk of invasive progression.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Carcinoma in situ is diagnosed in more than 60,000 women in the US each year, and over 80% of these cases consist of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) [1]. The incidence of DCIS has been steadily rising over the past few decades [2] as women are living longer and more women are undergoing screening mammography [3, 4]. Risk factors for developing DCIS are similar to those for invasive breast cancer and include older age and a family history [4]. When DCIS is diagnosed on core needle biopsy, the risk of revealing invasive disease after excision is typically 10–20%, depending on the indication for biopsy and technique used [4,5,6,7]. However, there is significant controversy regarding the true clinical implications of a DCIS diagnosis, and thus, the best management strategy.
DCIS Biology
DCIS can be defined as a neoplastic proliferation of ductal (epithelial) cells that are limited to the ducts of the breast and do not invade the stroma [8, 9]. Histological criteria from the College of American Pathologists are used to differentiate between three nuclear grades of DCIS using six morphological features, including pleomorphism, size, chromatin, nucleoli, mitoses, and orientation [10]. In general, low-grade DCIS is characterized by monotonous nuclei that may be up to 1.5–2 times the size of a red blood cell (RBC), while high-grade DCIS is often characterized by pleomorphic nuclei that are more than two times the size of an RBC with frequent mitoses and irregular chromatin (Fig. 1) [10]. This classification system for DCIS grading (G1: low nuclear grade; G2: intermediate nuclear grade; G3: high nuclear grade) is recommended by the AJCC [11]. In addition to grade, there are several architectural subtypes of DCIS, including cribriform, micropapillary, solid, and comedo types. DCIS can often be distinguished from invasive carcinoma by the presence of myoepithelial cells, which can be verified by multiple markers (e.g., calponin and p63) [12]. However, diagnosing DCIS remains a difficult challenge for many pathologists, and significant interobserver variability has been noted. Review of 73 DCIS specimens by > 100 pathologists demonstrated only 84% concordance [13]. Follow-up studies indicate that interpretive agreement by the same pathologists at two time points likely yields similar concordance rates [14].
Given that it is confined to the ductal system, DCIS is considered a “noninvasive” cancer and/or a nonobligate precursor to breast cancer. However, some studies have demonstrated genetic similarities between DCIS and invasive breast cancer [15,16,17,18,19]. In addition, the risk factors for DCIS have been shown to be similar to those for invasive carcinoma, including similar rates of germline BRCA1/2 mutations [20], further confirming the precursor nature of DCIS [21].
While the association between DCIS and invasive carcinoma appears strong, the exact progression from DCIS to invasive carcinoma is less understood, and only a few small studies describe the natural history of untreated DCIS. An early study of 28 women with low-grade DCIS that were inadvertently treated by biopsy alone were followed for > 30 years, and 16 women (36%) developed ipsilateral invasive breast cancers (same breast, same quadrant) resulting in 7 deaths from breast cancer [22]. In a review of publications related to the natural history of DCIS, the rate of progression ranged from 14 to 53% over 10+ years [23]. Undiagnosed DCIS in autopsy studies was also noted to be approximately 9% [23], suggesting a greater prevalence of DCIS than currently appreciated, although the clinical significance is likely negligible. A recent study of 720 patients with pure DCIS who underwent excision alone without radiation included 124 patients with < 1 mm margins (surveillance group) and 596 patients with ≥ 1 mm margins (excision group) [24]. The 10-year local recurrence (LR) probabilities (in situ or invasive) stratified by grade for the excision group ranged from 13 to 35%, while the rates for the surveillance group ranged from 51 to 70%. The 10-year LR rates for only invasive disease ranged from 8 to 17% for the excision group and 26–31% for the surveillance group [24]. Taken together, these findings confirm that there is a strong correlation between DCIS and progression to invasive carcinoma, and additional studies are needed to further define the potential timeline of this progression, including associated risk factors.
Imaging of DCIS
When considering management options for DCIS, it is important to not only categorize the disease (by grade and receptor status), but also to establish the extent of disease. On mammogram, DCIS often presents as calcifications (> 90% of cases [25]), which may have a distinct appearance compared to benign findings (Table 1) [34]. Given that the sensitivity of mammography decreases with increasing breast density, breast ultrasound is commonly used for women with dense breast tissue; however, it appears to have the lowest positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting DCIS [26]. Alternatively, breast MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) can be used as a screening or diagnostic tool with DCIS presenting as non-mass enhancement or an irregular mass [27].
Some studies suggest that MRI is the most sensitive imaging modality for diagnosing DCIS (high and intermediate grade, in particular [28, 35, 36]), and it may be more accurate in estimating size than mammography alone [27]. In a study of 99 patients found to have suspicious calcifications on screening mammogram (BI-RADS 4 or 5) who then underwent breast MRI, the PPV in detecting DCIS increased from 25% by mammography to 57% on MRI [29]. Similarly, Berg et al. demonstrated that MRI was more sensitive than mammography, but also noted a higher risk of overestimation [26]. However, other studies have demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 27–80% for mammography and 35–100% for MRI [28, 30•, 31] (Table 1). For mammographic BI-RADS 4 lesions, MRI may be a useful noninvasive adjunct, although it may also lead to false-positive findings that require additional biopsies [32].
For patients diagnosed with DCIS, some have suggested routine preoperative MRI to identify additional disease. Petrillo et al. demonstrated 21.6% of patients in an institutional database of 245 DCIS patients who underwent preoperative MRI were found to have additional disease [36]. However, preoperative MRI has also been shown to be less accurate in predicting extent of disease in patients with extensive DCIS, and it may not alter mastectomy rates [37]. Additionally, Davis et al. demonstrated similar mastectomy and re-excision rates for women who did and did not undergo preoperative MRI [38].
Given the often multifocal and discontinuous growth pattern of DCIS, preoperative size estimation, and thus surgical planning, can be particularly challenging. When comparing imaging modalities, mammography appeared to be most accurate for low-grade DCIS but tended to underestimate intermediate and high-grade DCIS. In contrast, MRI overestimated low-grade DCIS, although it also underestimated high-grade DCIS (albeit to a lesser degree than mammography) [30•]. Currently, the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines recommend only performing breast MRI when additional information is needed prior to initiating treatment, while recognizing that it is unlikely to improve outcomes [39••]. Furthermore, breast MRI has not been shown to reduce rates of local-regional recurrence (LRR) or contralateral breast cancer (CBC) [40].
Following surgery, post-excision mammography should also be considered when margin status and/or the presence of residual calcifications are uncertain [39••, 41]. Post-treatment surveillance is similar to that of women with invasive disease, including annual mammography, starting 6–12 months after completion of radiation therapy [39••, 42].
Surgical Management of DCIS
Current guidelines for the surgical management of biopsy-proven DCIS parallel those of invasive cancer, namely complete surgical excision to negative margins [39••]. This both removes known disease and may identify adjacent invasive disease, which may occur in up to 25% of patients [43]. While some have found a 20% risk of synchronous invasive carcinoma at surgical excision for low-risk DCIS [44•], others have demonstrated that it could be only 6–10% [45••, 46]. Given these variable findings, studies to identify a low-risk subgroup of patients to forgo primary surgical excision of DCIS are underway [47, 48•, 49•].
Complete surgical excision may be performed by breast-conserving surgery (BCS), classically with whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT), or by total mastectomy with generally similar recurrence risks and survival [4]. As there are no disease-specific survival advantages to mastectomy, individual surgical decision-making is often based on patient perspectives and motivations [50]. However, extensive DCIS based on imaging may require up-front mastectomy. When BCS is elected, the intent is to excise all known disease and associated calcifications, which often requires a localizing procedure such as a wire or radioactive seed. Intraoperative specimen radiograph is mandatory for real-time confirmation of retrieval of the intended target, as well as radiologic evaluation of margins. Re-excision of positive/close margins may be performed in those attempting BCS, with mastectomy reserved for those unable to obtain negative margins after multiple attempts. Prior to margin re-excision, post-lumpectomy mammography may be valuable in identifying residual calcifications associated with retained DCIS [41].
Surgical Margin Status
Three [48, 51, 52] of the four [53] early randomized DCIS trials defined an adequate margin width as microscopically clear margins (“no ink on tumor”). However, one notable single-institution study found WBRT did not reduce ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rates when the excised DCIS had a margin width of ≥ 1 cm, which many interpreted as wider margins being optimal for all DCIS [54]. Subsequently, significant practice variability existed with roughly one third of women undergoing a second surgical procedure to obtain “clear” and/or wider margins [55, 56]. As such, surgical margin guidelines were established in 2016, and the currently accepted pathological surgical margin for pure DCIS treated with BCS is 2 mm, regardless of planned adjuvant therapy [39••, 57•]. This margin definition notably differs from the consensus guidelines for invasive cancer (including any DCIS associated with invasive cancer), in which “no ink on tumor” is considered a permissible negative margin width [58].
Surgical Nodal Evaluation
As pure DCIS is a non-invasive process, theoretically, there is no potential for lymph node involvement. However, a study of 349 patients with pure DCIS who underwent lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), 94.6% were pN0, 3.4% were pN0i+ (ITCs), 1.7% were pNmi, and only a single patient had pN1 disease (0.3%) [59•]. As such, surgical lymph node evaluation is not routinely recommended for women with DCIS undergoing BCS, regardless of grade, size, or receptor status. However, when mastectomy is planned, SLNB should be strongly considered at the time of the index operation. Since patients who undergo mastectomy for DCIS generally have more extensive disease, they are more likely to harbor occult invasive disease. Moreover, since SLNB in the setting of mastectomy adds little morbidity, this approach is recommended.
Radiation Therapy for DCIS
The purpose of radiation therapy following surgical excision of DCIS is to eradicate residual, but undetectable disease in the conserved breast. Four notable trials, each enrolling approximately 1000 women with 10–20 years of follow-up, found a marked reduction in recurrence risk ranging from 38 to 59% with the addition of WBRT following lumpectomy [60,61,62,63]. A meta-analysis of these major multi-center trials found a pooled hazard ratio of 0.49 (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41–0.58), suggesting a clinically meaningful reduction in recurrence rates of 50% [51]. Furthermore, adjuvant radiation was found to reduce recurrence rates in all subgroups (regardless of age, grade, or margin status). However, none of these prospective, randomized trials identified a survival benefit with the addition of radiotherapy. In contrast, one population-based longitudinal cohort study found a statistically significant survival benefit in those receiving radiation, as compared to wide excision alone (1.8% vs. 2.1%, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62–0.88) in patients with higher nuclear grade, younger age, and larger tumor size [52].
In addition to WBRT, more recent studies have investigated various technical aspects of radiotherapy administered after BCS, while others have explored options for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). In a retrospective analysis of > 4000 patients with DCIS from 10 academic institutions who underwent BCS with WBRT ± boost, the additional boost was shown to significantly decrease IBTR rates across all DCIS age groups, similar to the benefit observed in patients with invasive breast cancer [53]. Regarding hypofractionation, LR rates were similar among > 1600 women with DCIS treated with BCS and radiation using hypofractionated and conventional regimens [64]. The safety of these approaches has been further evaluated and validated in a recent meta-analysis, which confirmed that hypofractionated radiotherapy is safe, and the addition of a boost may further reduce the risk of LR [65].
Local control following mastectomy for DCIS is excellent with recurrence rates of 1–2% [4]. However, patients with close/positive margins following mastectomy for DCIS may be at a higher risk for LR. In a review of 810 mastectomy patients with DCIS, 11.7% had close/positive margins, 7.5% underwent PMRT, and none of the patients receiving PMRT had a LR [66]. On multivariate analysis, close margins were the only independent predictor of LR. The authors concluded that PMRT is not warranted, except for patients with multiple close/positive margins that cannot be surgically excised [66]. In contrast, another study evaluating close/positive margins post-mastectomy found the risk of chest wall recurrence was 1.7% at 8 years for the entire cohort, and 3.3% for those with high-grade disease. These authors concluded chest wall recurrence risk is sufficiently low not to warrant PMRT for close margins [67]. Taken together, national guidelines do not currently support routine use of PMRT for DCIS [39••].
Endocrine Therapy for DCIS
The estrogen and progesterone receptors (ER, PR) are the two most important biomarkers for DCIS and should be assessed to guide decision making for adjuvant endocrine therapy. Numerous large, randomized trials have shown a clear benefit to adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce ipsilateral in breast events, as well as contralateral risk reduction. For example, NSABP B-24 enrolled > 1804 women with DCIS undergoing BCT and randomized them to placebo or tamoxifen [68]. At greater than 10 years of follow-up, the tamoxifen group had a significant reduction in invasive and non-invasive IBTR for an overall 3.4% absolute reduction in any IBTR (p < 0.001). The tamoxifen group similarly had a 3.2% (p = 0.023) absolute risk reduction in CBC [68]. Similar results were seen in a study of > 1701 women undergoing complete local excision, who were randomized to WBRT, tamoxifen, or both [63]. With greater than 10 years of follow-up, tamoxifen reduced the incidence of all new breast events (HR 0.71, p = 0.002), ipsilateral in-breast DCIS (HR 0.7, p = 0.03), and contralateral breast events (HR 0.44, p = 0.005). In contrast to the NSABP trial, they found no reduction in ipsilateral invasive breast events (HR 0.95, p = 0.8).
For post-menopausal women, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to be more effective in reducing invasive breast cancer recurrences when compared to tamoxifen; therefore, studies were designed to compare the efficacy of anastrozole to tamoxifen in hormone-receptor positive DCIS. In IBIS-II, nearly 3864 post-menopausal women were randomized to anastrozole or tamoxifen, and anastrozole was found to be non-inferior to tamoxifen with no difference in overall recurrence [69]. Similarly, the NSABP B-35 included 3104 post-menopausal women randomized to receive anastrozole or tamoxifen for 5 years [70•]. The anastrozole group had a significantly higher 10-year breast cancer-free interval (89.1% tamoxifen vs. 93.1% anastrozole).
In light of these trials, the NCCN recommends 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS treated with BCT or excision alone. Tamoxifen is the agent of choice for pre-menopausal women, while either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor is acceptable for post-menopausal women based on age and other medical risk factors [39••].
DCIS Outcomes
LR rates for DCIS are estimated to range from 5 to 25%, depending on the tumor biology, treatment options, and follow-up period [71, 72]. In a study of 401 low-risk DCIS patients from a single institution who underwent surgical excision, the 10-year invasive IBTR rate was 5.3% overall (all BCS patients) and 6% for those omitting radiation [44•]. Similarly, in a population-based cohort of 1036 women with DCIS treated with BCS, the 5-year overall risk of recurrence was 8.2% for invasive cancer and 11.7% for DCIS [71]. In general, consistent risk factors for recurrence include younger age at diagnosis, positive surgical margins, tumor size and grade, and comedo necrosis [4]. Furthermore, the pathological characteristics of second breast cancers, including grade and ER status, tend to be similar to that of the index DCIS [73]. Regarding outcomes stratified by local-regional treatments, similar adjusted disease-specific survivals have been observed for patients undergoing mastectomy, lumpectomy with radiation, and lumpectomy alone [74].
Given these exploratory findings, multiple groups have attempted to identify prognostic risk factors and algorithms for predicting outcomes. One of the earliest schemas developed is the Van Nuys classification system, which combined nuclear grade and comedo-type necrosis to predict recurrence [75]. The groups included (1) non-high-grade DCIS without comedo necrosis, (2) non-high-grade DCIS with comedo necrosis, and (3) high-grade DCIS with or without comedo necrosis. Using these subgroups, LR rates were 3.8% in group 1, 11.1% in group 2, and 26.5% in group 3, with 8-year actuarial disease-free survival rates of 93%, 84%, and 61%, respectively [75]. The Van Nuys Prognostic Index was later refined and now uses a scoring system that quantifies five prognostic factors: tumor size, margin width, nuclear grade, age, and comedo necrosis [76].
Expanding on this concept, Van Zee and colleagues developed a nomogram to predict LR after BCS for DCIS based on 10 variables: age at diagnosis, family history of breast cancer, presentation (clinical and/or radiological findings), adjuvant radiation, adjuvant endocrine therapy, nuclear grade, necrosis, surgical margins, number of surgical excisions, and year of surgery [77, 78]. The DCIS nomogram demonstrated good calibration and discrimination for predicting 5- and 10-year LR probabilities (bootstrap corrected c-index 0.688) [77], and it was subsequently externally validated in multiple populations (c-indices 0.66–0.68) [79,80,81].
Beyond ipsilateral events, patients with DCIS may also experience CBC and/or distant recurrences. Based on data from 23,547 women with DCIS in the California Cancer Registry, the risk of CBC (in situ and invasive disease) was significantly higher for women with DCIS compared to the general population [82]. In a recent study of DCIS patients in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database, ER-positive DCIS was shown to be associated with CBC risk [83], suggesting that it may actually represent a field defect similar to that of other types of breast atypia. In a separate population-based cohort of 1492 women with an initial diagnosis of DCIS treated with BCS alone, the overall 10-year risk of regional/metastatic invasive cancer was 3.8%, although it ranged from 1.2 to 22.5% in various subgroups [84].
Regarding survival, review of 108,196 women with DCIS in the SEER database (mean follow-up 7.5 years) demonstrated that the 20-year breast cancer-specific mortality was 3.3% overall [85••]. However, it was higher for women diagnosed before age 35 years (compared to older women) and for blacks (compared with non-Hispanic whites). The risk of death was significantly higher following an ipsilateral invasive breast cancer recurrence. Interactive decision aids are being developed to help patients assess the risks and benefits of treatment, with tools designed to present clinical trial data in a patient-facing manner (https://dcisoptions.org/dst). Additional research is necessary to effectively communicate risk in order to promote informed decision making around treatment options.
DCIS Molecular Risk Predictors
Researchers have long sought to identify either imaging or tissue-based markers to stratify risk in DCIS. Currently, there are two multiplex molecular classifiers in clinical use. The DCIS Score is a 12-gene expression RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) assay for DCIS that estimates the 10-year risk of any LR (DCIS or invasive) following BCS without radiation [86]. Among 327 patients in the ECOG 5194 registry study of excision alone for low-risk DCIS, the DCIS Score was shown to correlate with LR risk. For DCIS risk groups (low, intermediate, and high), the 10-year risk of an ipsilateral breast event was 10.6%, 26.7%, and 25.9%, respectively. For invasive cancer events, it was 3.7%, 12.3%, and 19.2%, respectively [86]. The prognostic value of the DCIS Score was confirmed in a large population-based cohort of 3320 patients, which correlated the DCIS Score with LR (low: 12.7%, intermediate: 33%, high: 27.8%), albeit with less discrimination compared to the ECOG 5194 dataset [86, 87]. As follow-up to this study, the investigators combined the ECOG 5194 and Ontario cohorts and found that the DCIS Score, age at diagnosis, tumor size, and year of diagnosis were all independently associated with 10-year LR risk [88•]. Combining clinical factors with the DCIS Score was able to provide improved risk stratification over the DCIS Score alone.
A new molecular tool, the DCISionRT Test, is based on 7 IHC (immunohistochemical) markers (COX-2, FOXA1, HER2, Ki-67, p16/INK4A, PR, and SIAH2), as well as four clinicopathologic features (age, size, margin status, and palpability). This biological signature has been validated in two separate datasets, and interestingly, appears to be correlated with the risk of invasive recurrence [89•]. For patients treated without RT, the DCISionRT Test identified a low-risk group with a 10-year invasive cancer risk of 4% and a high-risk group with an invasive cancer risk of 15%. This tool is starting to be used clinically, although it remains to be seen how it compares to the DCIS Score with respect to patient and provider uptake.
Clinical Trials for DCIS
Recent clinical trials have discovered the marked biologic heterogeneity among patients with DCIS, offering an opportunity to de-escalate therapy for those at lowest risk for progression. RTOG 9804 was a study of “good risk” DCIS, defined as low- or intermediate-grade DCIS, measuring up to 2.5 cm. Patients were randomized to either surveillance or radiation; both arms allowed adjuvant tamoxifen. At a median follow-up of 7 years, the ipsilateral LR rate was 0.9% among women with radiation, compared to 6.7% among those without radiation (HR 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03–0.47) [90]. Unpublished data at a longer median follow-up of 12.4 years showed that the cumulative incidence of any LR was 2.8% for those in the WBRT arm and 11.4% for those in the observation arm (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13–0.54).
The most recent trials for DCIS are based upon the argument that only ipsilateral invasive recurrence, rather than any recurrence, is the most clinically meaningful endpoint and the only one that justifies aggressive local-regional treatment. These trials seek to compare ipsilateral invasive cancer diagnoses between two treatment strategies—standard of care where all DCIS is excised, compared to close monitoring where only those with DCIS that progress are treated aggressively. The strategy is based upon similar trials for early stage prostate malignancies, which changed the treatment paradigm for patients diagnosed with screen detected prostate cancer [91]. There are three trials currently recruiting, all of which randomize patients with low-risk DCIS to guideline concordant care or active monitoring. The LORIS trial is recruiting in the UK [92], the LORD trial in Europe [48], and the COMET trial in the US [93] (Table 2). Although the trials differ slightly with respect to eligibility criteria and follow-up schedules, they are sufficiently similar to allow for a meta-analysis of results when all three trials have met their primary endpoints. Furthermore, comprehensive biospecimen collection in all three trials will allow for discovery of new biomarkers specific for invasive progression, rather than any recurrence.
Finally, DCIS and other preinvasive lesions present an ideal opportunity in which to test novel prevention agents using a window of opportunity trial design with biomarker endpoints. Ongoing trials are evaluating the possible role of immune-modulating agents (e.g., pembrolizumab, dendritic cell vaccine, Neu/Vax), novel targets (e.g., JAK/STAT inhibition, others), as well as novel endocrine therapies (e.g., topical tamoxifen, bazedoxifene) to establish proof of concept in support of larger-scale prevention studies (Table 2).
Conclusions
DCIS is a biologically heterogeneous group of lesions which are associated with variably increased risks for invasive cancer. Currently, DCIS continues to be treated with local-regional therapies that are similar to those recommended for invasive cancer. Guidelines for both loco-regional and systemic treatment for DCIS are well described, based upon randomized trials. However, given the heterogeneity of DCIS, there may be a group that could be safely managed with close monitoring, such as that recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia, and others that may require additional targeted therapies such as immune modulation. International efforts aimed towards more precise risk assessment of DCIS will allow for greater individualization of treatment options for future patients.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
How Common Is Breast Cancer? American Cancer Society. 2018. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html. Accessed 5/16/2018.
Kerlikowske K. Epidemiology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):139–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq027.
Allison KH, Abraham LA, Weaver DL, Tosteson AN, Nelson HD, Onega T, et al. Trends in breast biopsy pathology diagnoses among women undergoing mammography in the United States: a report from the breast Cancer surveillance consortium. Cancer. 2015;121(9):1369–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29199.
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(3):170–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp482.
Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K, Treadwell JR, Launders J, Schoelles K. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(4):238–46. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-1-201001050-00190.
Darling ML, Smith DN, Lester SC, Kaelin C, Selland DL, Denison CM, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. AJRAm J Roentgenol. 2000;175(5):1341–6.
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(2):253–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cursur.2004.09.011.
Allred DC. Ductal carcinoma in situ: terminology, classification, and natural history. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):134–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq035.
Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, Connolly JL, de Baca ME, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(1):15–25. https://doi.org/10.1043/1543-2165-133.1.15.
Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, Connolly JL, De Baca ME, Fitzgibbons PL et al. Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast College of American Pathologists. 2013. http://www.cap.org/ShowProperty?nodePath=/UCMCon/Contribution%20Folders/WebContent/pdf/cp-breast-dcis-13protocol-3200.pdf&_ga=2.86995600.981279591.1538851930-1326061859.1538851930. Accessed 10/5/2018.
Cancer Staging Manual AJCC. 8th ed. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing; 2016.
Kempson RL. Surgical Pathology Criteria: DCIS. 2006. http://surgpathcriteria.stanford.edu/breast/dcis/. Accessed 10/5/2018.
Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, Geller BM, Onega T, Tosteson AN, et al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. Jama. 2015;313(11):1122–32. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.1405.
Jackson SL, Frederick PD, Pepe MS, Nelson HD, Weaver DL, Allison KH, et al. Diagnostic reproducibility: what happens when the same pathologist interprets the same breast biopsy specimen at two points in time? Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(5):1234–41. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5695-0.
Burkhardt L, Grob TJ, Hermann I, Burandt E, Choschzick M, Janicke F, et al. Gene amplification in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(3):757–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0675-8.
Buerger H, Otterbach F, Simon R, Schafer KL, Poremba C, Diallo R, et al. Different genetic pathways in the evolution of invasive breast cancer are associated with distinct morphological subtypes. J Pathol. 1999;189(4):521–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9896(199912)189:4<521::Aid-path472>3.0.Co;2-b.
Hwang ES, DeVries S, Chew KL, Moore DH 2nd, Kerlikowske K, Thor A, et al. Patterns of chromosomal alterations in breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(15):5160–7. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-04-0165.
Abba MC, Gong T, Lu Y, Lee J, Zhong Y, Lacunza E, et al. A molecular portrait of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Res. 2015;75(18):3980–90. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.Can-15-0506.
Petridis C, Brook MN, Shah V, Kohut K, Gorman P, Caneppele M, et al. Genetic predisposition to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0675-7.
Claus EB, Petruzella S, Matloff E, Carter D. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA. 2005;293(8):964–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.8.964.
Reeves GK, Pirie K, Green J, Bull D, Beral V. Comparison of the effects of genetic and environmental risk factors on in situ and invasive ductal breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(4):930–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.26460.
Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Simpson JF, Page DL, Dupont WD. Continued observation of the natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ reaffirms proclivity for local recurrence even after more than 30 years of follow-up. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(5):662–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2014.141.
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. 2006;97(2):135–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-9101-z.
Khan S, Epstein M, Lagios MD, Silverstein MJ. Are we Overtreating ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(1):59–63. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5501-z.
Barreau B, de Mascarel I, Feuga C, MacGrogan G, Dilhuydy MH, Picot V, et al. Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlations. Eur J Radiol. 2005;54(1):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.11.019.
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast Cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830–49. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031484.
Greenwood HI, Heller SL, Kim S, Sigmund EE, Shaylor SD, Moy L. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: review of MR imaging features. Radiographics. 2013;33(6):1569–88. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.336125055.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):485–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61232-x.
Badan GM, Piato S, Roveda DJ. de Faria Castro Fleury E. predictive values of BI-RADS((R)) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(10):1701–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.07.010.
• Preibsch H, Beckmann J, Pawlowski J, Kloth C, Hahn M, Staebler A, et al. Accuracy of breast magnetic resonance imaging compared to mammography in the preoperative detection and measurement of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a retrospective analysis. Acad Radiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.07.013. This study reviews the accuracy of breast MRI and mammography for women diagnosed with DCIS. It demonstrated that MRI may outperform mammography in detecting and estimating size of DCIS.
Aminololama-Shakeri S, Flowers CI, McLaren CE, Wisner DJ, de Guzman J, Campbell JE, et al. Can radiologists predict the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast Cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(4):933–9. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.16.16073.
Strobel K, Schrading S, Hansen NL, Barabasch A, Kuhl CK. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;274(2):343–51. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140645.
Izumori A, Takebe K, Sato A. Ultrasound findings and histological features of ductal carcinoma in situ detected by ultrasound examination alone. Breast Cancer. 2010;17(2):136–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-009-0134-8.
Bent CK, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Sayre JW. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(5):1378–83. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.09.3423.
Lehman CD. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):150–1. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq030.
Petrillo A, Fusco R, Petrillo M, Triunfo F, Filice S, Vallone P, et al. Added value of breast MRI for preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: diagnostic performance on 362 patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17(3):e127–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2016.12.007.
Allen LR, Lago-Toro CE, Hughes JH, Careaga E, Brown AT, Chernick M, et al. Is there a role for MRI in the preoperative assessment of patients with DCIS? Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(9):2395–400. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1000-9.
Davis KL, Barth RJ Jr, Gui J, Dann E, Eisenberg B, Rosenkranz K. Use of MRI in preoperative planning for women with newly diagnosed DCIS: risk or benefit? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3270–4. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2548-3.
•• Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Aft R, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ et al. NCCN guidelines: breast Cancer, version 1.20182018 3/20/2018. Review of the standard guidelines for diagnosing and treating DCIS.
Pilewskie M, Olcese C, Eaton A, Patil S, Morris E, Morrow M, et al. Perioperative breast MRI is not associated with lower locoregional recurrence rates in DCIS patients treated with or without radiation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(5):1552–60. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3424-5.
Waddell BE, Stomper PC, DeFazio JL, Hurd TC, Edge SB. Postexcision mammography is indicated after resection of ductal carcinoma-in-situ of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7(9):665–8.
ASTRO. ASTRO Choosing Wisely: Don't routinely recommend follow-up mammograms more often than annually for women who have had radiotherapy following breast conserving surgery. Online: http://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/american-society-radiation-oncology-follow-up-mammograms-following-radiotherapy-for-breast-conservation/2014. Accessed 11/5/2018.
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(1):119–28. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102368.
• Pilewskie M, Olcese C, Patil S, Van Zee KJ. Women with Low-Risk DCIS Eligible for the LORIS Trial After Complete Surgical Excision: How Low Is Their Risk After Standard Therapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(13):4253–61. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5595-3. The 10-year invasive-IBTR rates for Among women meeting LORIS criteria undergoing excision without RT, the 10-year invasive-IBTR rate was 6%. Roughly 20% of women with core biopsy-proven non-high-grade DCIS had invasive cancer at excision.
•• Grimm LJ, Ryser MD, Partridge AH, Thompson AM, Thomas JS, Wesseling J, et al. Surgical Upstaging Rates for Vacuum Assisted Biopsy Proven DCIS: Implications for Active Surveillance Trials. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(12):3534–40. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6018-9. DCIS upstaging rates in women eligible for active surveillance trials are low (6–10%). With careful patient selection, active surveillance trials for DCIS have a low risk of missing occult invasive cancer.
Soumian S, Verghese ET, Booth M, Sharma N, Chaudhri S, Bradley S, et al. Concordance between vacuum assisted biopsy and postoperative histology: implications for the proposed low risk DCIS trial (LORIS). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(12):1337–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.09.028.
Francis A, Fallowfield L, Rea D. The LORIS Trial: Addressing overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Oncol (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)). 2015;27(1):6–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2014.09.015.
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(12):1497–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.008.
• Lynch T, Frank ES, Collyar DE, Basila D, Pinto D, Partridge A, et al. Comparison of operative to monitoring and endocrine therapy for low-risk DCIS (COMET study). J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15_suppl):TPS599-TPS. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.TPS599. This is an example of one of the ongoing clinical trials evaluating active surveillance for low risk DCIS.
Mercieca-Bebber R, King MT, Boxer MM, Spillane A, Winters ZE, Butow PN, et al. What quality-of-life issues do women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) consider important when making treatment decisions? Breast Cancer. 2017;24(5):720–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-017-0765-0.
Goodwin A, Parker S, Ghersi D, Wilcken N. Post-operative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast--a systematic review of the randomised trials. Breast. 2009;18(3):143–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2009.04.003.
Sagara Y, Freedman RA, Vaz-Luis I, Mallory MA, Wong SM, Aydogan F, et al. Patient prognostic score and associations with survival improvement offered by radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based longitudinal cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(11):1190–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.1869.
Moran MS, Zhao Y, Ma S, Kirova Y, Fourquet A, Chen P, et al. Association of Radiotherapy Boost for ductal carcinoma in situ with local control after whole-breast radiotherapy. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(8):1060–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6948.
Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BS, Martino S, et al. The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(19):1455–61. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199905133401902.
McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, Feigelson HS, James TA, Barney T, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467–75. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.43.
Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, Griggs JJ, Hawley ST, Hamilton AS, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1551–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1450.
• Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, Houssami N, Chavez-MacGregor M, Harris JR, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline on Margins for Breast-Conserving Surgery with Whole-Breast Irradiation in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(12):3801–10. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5449-z. This study established that excision of DCIS requires a negative margin width of 2 mm.
Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Annals of surgical oncology. 2014;21(3):704–16. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3481-4.
• van Roozendaal LM, Goorts B, Klinkert M, Keymeulen K, De Vries B, Strobbe LJA, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted in DCIS patients treated with breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(3):517–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3783-2. The incidence of significant lymph node metastasis in women with DCIS is extremely low, and thus, sentinel lymph node biopsy is not recommended for women undergoing lumpectomy.
Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6):478–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr027.
Donker M, Litiere S, Werutsky G, Julien JP, Fentiman IS, Agresti R, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ: 15-year recurrence rates and outcome after a recurrence, from the EORTC 10853 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32):4054–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.5077.
Warnberg F, Garmo H, Emdin S, Hedberg V, Adwall L, Sandelin K, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ: 20 years follow-up in the randomized SweDCIS trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(32):3613–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.2595.
Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Forsyth S, Bundred NJ, et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(1):21–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70266-7.
Lalani N, Paszat L, Sutradhar R, Thiruchelvam D, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, et al. Long-term outcomes of hypofractionation versus conventional radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(5):1017–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.026.
Nilsson C, Valachis A. The role of boost and hypofractionation as adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with DCIS: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114(1):50–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.01.001.
Fitzsullivan E, Lari SA, Smith B, Caudle AS, Krishnamurthy S, Lucci A, et al. Incidence and consequence of close margins in patients with ductal carcinoma-in situ treated with mastectomy: is further therapy warranted? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(13):4103–12. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3194-0.
Chan LW, Rabban J, Hwang ES, Bevan A, Alvarado M, Ewing C, et al. Is radiation indicated in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and close or positive mastectomy margins? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(1):25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.01.044.
Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Mamounas E, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and bowel project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353(9169):1993–2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)05036-9.
Forbes JF, Sestak I, Howell A, Bonanni B, Bundred N, Levy C, et al. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10021):866–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01129-0.
• Margolese RG, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, et al. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10021):849–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01168-X. This randomized trial demonstrated the improved outcomes with anastrozole compared to tamoxifen in post-menopausal women, similar to that observed in those with invasive carcinoma.
Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, Ljung BM, Ernster VL, Stewart K, et al. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(22):1692–702.
Boyages J, Delaney G, Taylor R. Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Cancer. 1999;85(3):616–28.
Arvold ND, Punglia RS, Hughes ME, Jiang W, Edge SB, Javid SH, et al. Pathologic characteristics of second breast cancers after breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2012;118(24):6022–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27691.
Worni M, Akushevich I, Greenup R, Sarma D, Ryser MD, Myers ER, et al. Trends in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(12):djv263. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv263.
Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, Colburn WJ, Barth A, Gierson ED, et al. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet. 1995;345(8958):1154–7.
Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Treatment selection for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast using the University of Southern California/Van Nuys (USC/VNPI) prognostic index. Breast J. 2015;21(2):127–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12368.
Rudloff U, Jacks LM, Goldberg JI, Wynveen CA, Brogi E, Patil S, et al. Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(23):3762–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.26.8847.
Breast Cancer Nomogram: Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Recurrence. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. http://nomograms.mskcc.org/breast/DuctalCarcinomaInSituRecurrencePage.aspx. Accessed 10/6/2018.
Wang F, Li H, Tan PH, Chua ET, Yeo RM, Lim FL, et al. Validation of a nomogram in the prediction of local recurrence risks after conserving surgery for Asian women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol (Great Britain)). 2014;26(11):684–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2014.08.004.
Collins LC, Achacoso N, Haque R, Nekhlyudov L, Quesenberry CP Jr, Schnitt SJ, et al. Risk prediction for local breast Cancer recurrence among women with DCIS treated in a community practice: a nested, case-control study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S502–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4641-x.
Sweldens C, Peeters S, van Limbergen E, Janssen H, Laenen A, Patil S, et al. Local relapse after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a European single-center experience and external validation of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center DCIS nomogram. Cancer J (Sudbury, Mass). 2014;20(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ppo.0000000000000025.
Innos K, Horn-Ross PL. Risk of second primary breast cancers among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111(3):531–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9807-1.
Stout NK, Cronin AM, Uno H, Ozanne EM, Hassett MJ, Frank ES, et al. Estrogen-receptor status and risk of contralateral breast cancer following DCIS. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(3):777–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4860-5.
Molinaro AM, Sison JD, Ljung BM, Tlsty TD, Kerlikowske K. Risk prediction for local versus regional/metastatic tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis treated by lumpectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;157(2):351–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3814-z.
•• 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(7):888–96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2510. Based upon SEER data, the breast cancer-specific mortality at 20 years for women with DCIS was 3.3%. Radiotherapy did not diminish breast cancer mortality at 10 years. After a diagnosis of an ipsilateral invasive breast cancer, the risk of death increased.
Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, Butler SM, Hughes LL, Yoshizawa C, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(10):701–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt067.
Solin LJ, Gray R, Hughes LL, Wood WC, Lowen MA, Badve SS, et al. Surgical excision without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 12-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(33):3938–44. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.60.8588.
• Rakovitch E, Gray R, Baehner FL, Sutradhar R, Crager M, Gu S, et al. Refined estimates of local recurrence risks by DCIS score adjusting for clinicopathological features: a combined analysis of ECOG-ACRIN E5194 and Ontario DCIS cohort studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(2):359–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4693-2. The Oncotype DX DCIS Score, age at diagnosis, tumor size, and year of diagnosis were shown to provide independent prognostic information on the risk of local recurrence.
• Bremer T, Whitworth PW, Patel R, Savala J, Barry T, Lyle S, et al. A Biological Signature for Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ to Predict Radiotherapy Benefit and Assess Recurrence Risk. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(23):5895–901. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-18-0842. This study demonstrates that a biological signature (an individualized Decision Score) was prognostic for risk and predicted RT benefit for DCIS patients.
McCormick B, Winter K, Hudis C, Kuerer HM, Rakovitch E, Smith BL, et al. RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(7):709–15. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.57.9029.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220.
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(16):2296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.017.
Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, Frank ES, Pinto D, Basila D, et al. The COMET (comparison of operative to monitoring and endocrine therapy) trial: a phase III randomized trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ. 2019;12; 9(3):e026797.
•• ClinicalTrials.gov. National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/. Accessed 1/15/2019 2019. Online resource with summaries of the most recent and ongoing clinical trials related to DCIS.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge and thank Lauren Halligan for her contributions in preparation of the figure for this manuscript.
Funding Sources
ESH is supported by the NIH (RFA-CA-17-035, R01 CA185138-01), the DOD (BC132057), PCORI (1505-30497, 1503-29572) and BCRF, as well as by the Duke Cancer Support Grant (5P30CA014236-44). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Jennifer Plichta, Laura Rosenberger, Cosette DeChant, and E. Shelley Hwang declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Plichta, J.K., Rosenberger, L.H., DeChant, C.A. et al. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Management: All or Nothing, or Something in between?. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 11, 190–202 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-019-0306-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-019-0306-2