Dataset Information

DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (DCISM) can be challenging in balancing the risks of overtreatment versus undertreatment. We compared DCISM, pure DCIS, and small volume (T1a) invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) as related to histopathology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes. METHODS:Women ages 18-90 years who underwent breast surgery for DCIS, DCISM, or T1a IDC were selected from the SEER Database (2004-2015). Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of diagnosis with treatment and survival, respectively. RESULTS:A total of 134,569 women were identified: 3.2% DCISM, 70.9% DCIS, and 25.9% with T1a IDC. Compared with invasive disease, DCISM was less likely to be ER+ or PR+ and more likely to be HER2+. After adjustment, DCIS and invasive patients were less likely to undergo mastectomy than DCISM patients (DCIS: OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.49-0.56; invasive: OR 0.86, CI 0.81-0.92). For those undergoing lumpectomy, the likelihood of receiving radiation was similar for DCISM and invasive patients but lower for DCIS patients (OR 0.57, CI 0.52-0.63). After adjustment, breast-cancer-specific survival was significantly different between DCISM and the other two groups (DCIS: HR 0.59, CI 0.43-0.8; invasive: HR 1.43, CI 1.04-1.96). However, overall survival was not significantly different between DCISM and invasive disease, whereas patients with DCIS had improved OS (HR 0.83, CI 0.75-0.93). CONCLUSIONS:Although DCISM is a distinct entity, current treatment patterns and prognosis are comparable to those with small volume IDC. These findings may help providers counsel patients and determine appropriate treatment plans.

SUBMITTER: Champion CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6736745 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease?

Champion Cosette D CD Ren Yi Y Thomas Samantha M SM Fayanju Oluwadamilola M OM Rosenberger Laura H LH Greenup Rachel A RA Menendez Carolyn S CS Hwang E Shelley ES Plichta Jennifer K JK

Annals of surgical oncology 20190724 10

<h4>Background</h4>Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (DCISM) can be challenging in balancing the risks of overtreatment versus undertreatment. We compared DCISM, pure DCIS, and small volume (T1a) invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) as related to histopathology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Women ages 18-90 years who underwent breast surgery for DCIS, DCISM, or T1a IDC were selected from the SEER Database (2004-2015). Multivariate logistic regression and ...[more]

PMID: 31342393

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive form of breast cancer where cells restricted to the ducts exhibit an atypical phenotype. Some DCIS lesions are believed to rapidly transit to invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs), while others remain unchanged. Existing classification systems for DCIS fail to identify those lesions that transit to IDC. We studied gene expression patterns of 31 pure DCIS, 36 pure invasive cancers and 42 cases of mixed diagnosis (invasive cancer with an in situ component) using Agilent Whole Human Genome Oligo Microarrays 44k. Six normal breast tissue samples were also included as controls. qRT-PCR was used for validation. All DCIS and invasive samples could be classified into the intrinsic molecular subtypes defined for invasive breast cancer. Hierarchical clustering establishes that samples group by intrinsic subtype, and not by diagnosis. We observed heterogeneity in the transcriptomes among DCIS of high histological grade and identified a distinct subgroup containing seven of the 31 DCIS samples with gene expression characteristics more similar to advanced tumours. A set of genes independent of grade, ER-status and HER2-status was identified by logistic regression that univariately classified a sample as belonging to this distinct DCIS subgroup. qRT-PCR of single markers clearly separated this DCIS subgroup from the other DCIS, and contains samples from several histopathological and intrinsic molecular subtypes. The genes that differentiate between these two types of DCIS suggest several processes related to the re-organisation of the microenvironment. This raises interesting possibilities for identification of DCIS lesions both with and without invasive characteristics, which potentially could be used in clinical assessment of a woman's risk of progression, and lead to improved management that would avoid the current over- and under-treatment of patients. Breast cancer samples, 31 pure DCIS patients, 36 IDC patients, 42 mixed and 6 normal.

Project description:BACKGROUND. The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has steadily increased, as have concerns regarding overtreatment. Active surveillance is a novel treatment strategy that avoids surgical excision, but identifying patients with occult invasive disease who should be excluded from active surveillance is challenging. Radiologists are not typically expected to predict the upstaging of DCIS to invasive disease, though they might be trained to perform this task. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a mixed-methods two-stage observer study can improve radiologists' ability to predict upstaging of DCIS to invasive disease on mammography. METHODS. All cases of DCIS calcifications that underwent stereotactic biopsy between 2010 and 2015 were identified. Two cohorts were randomly generated, each containing 150 cases (120 pure DCIS cases and 30 DCIS cases upstaged to invasive disease at surgery). Nine breast radiologists reviewed the mammograms in the first cohort in a blinded fashion and scored the probability of upstaging to invasive disease. The radiologists then reviewed the cases and results collectively in a focus group to develop consensus criteria that could improve their ability to predict upstaging. The radiologists reviewed the mammograms from the second cohort in a blinded fashion and again scored the probability of upstaging. Statistical analysis compared the performances between rounds 1 and 2. RESULTS. The mean AUC for reader performance in predicting upstaging in round 1 was 0.623 (range, 0.514-0.684). In the focus group, radiologists agreed that upstaging was better predicted when an associated mass, asymmetry, or architectural distortion was present; when densely packed calcifications extended over a larger area; and when the most suspicious features were focused on rather than the most common features. Additionally, radiologists agreed that BI-RADS descriptors do not adequately characterize risk of invasion, and that microinvasive disease and smaller areas of DCIS will have poor prediction estimates. Reader performance significantly improved in round 2 (mean AUC, 0.765; range, 0.617-0.852; p = .045). CONCLUSION. A mixed-methods two-stage observer study identified factors that helped radiologists significantly improve their ability to predict upstaging of DCIS to invasive disease. CLINICAL IMPACT. Breast radiologists can be trained to better predict upstaging of DCIS to invasive disease, which may facilitate discussions with patients and referring providers.

Dataset Information

DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease?

Publications

DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets