Dataset Information

Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Biology, Language, and Active Surveillance: A Survey of Breast Radiologists' Knowledge and Opinions.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To understand how breast radiologists perceive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Materials and methods

A 19-item survey was developed by the Society of Breast Imaging Patient Care and Delivery Committee and distributed to all Society of Breast Imaging members. The survey queried respondents' demographics, knowledge of DCIS biology, language used to discuss a new diagnosis of DCIS, and perspectives on active surveillance for DCIS. Five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree) were used.

Results

There were 536 responses for a response rate of 41%. There was agreement that DCIS is the primary driver of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening (median 4), and respondents provided mean and median overdiagnosis estimates of 29.7% and 25% for low-grade DCIS as well as 4.2% and 0% for high-grade DCIS, respectively. Responses varied in how to describe DCIS but most often used the word "cancer" with a qualifier such as "early" (32%) or "pre-invasive" (25%). Respondents disagreed (median 2) with removing the word "carcinoma" from DCIS. Finally, there was agreement that current standard of care therapy for some forms of DCIS is overtreatment (median 4) and that active surveillance as an alternative management strategy should be studied (mean 4), but felt that ultrasound (median 4) and MRI (median 4) should be used to exclude women with occult invasive disease before active surveillance.

Conclusions

Breast radiologists' opinions about DCIS biology, language, and active surveillance are not homogenous, but general trends exist that can be used to guide research, education, and advocacy efforts.

SUBMITTER: Grimm LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8114676 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe hypothesize that radiologists' estimated percentage likelihood assessments for the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive cancer may predict histologic outcomes.Materials and methodsTwo hundred fifty cases categorized as BI-RADS category 4 or 5 at four University of California Medical Centers were retrospectively reviewed by 10 academic radiologists with a range of 1-39 years in practice. Readers assigned BI-RADS category (1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, or 5), estimated percentage likelihood of DCIS or invasive cancer (0-100%), and confidence rating (1 = low, 5 = high) after reviewing screening and diagnostic mammograms and ultrasound images. ROC curves were generated.ResultsSixty-two percent (156/250) of lesions were benign and 38% (94/250) were malignant. There were 26 (10%) DCIS, 20 (8%) invasive cancers, and 48 (19%) cases of DCIS and invasive cancer. AUC values were 0.830-0.907 for invasive cancer and 0.731-0.837 for DCIS alone. Sensitivity of 82% (56/68), specificity of 84% (153/182), positive predictive value (PPV) of 66% (56/85), negative predictive value (NPV) of 93% (153/165), and accuracy of 84% ([56 + 153]/250) were calculated using an estimated percentage likelihood of 20% or higher as the prediction threshold for invasive cancer for the radiologist with the highest AUC (0.907; 95% CI, 0.864-0.951). Every 20% increase in the estimated percentage likelihood of invasive cancer increased the odds of invasive cancer by approximately two times (odds ratio, 2.4). For DCIS, using a threshold of 40% or higher, sensitivity of 81% (21/26), specificity of 79% (178/224), PPV of 31% (21/67), NPV of 97% (178/183), and accuracy of 80% ([21 + 178]/250) were calculated. Similarly, these values were calculated at thresholds of 2% or higher (BI-RADS category 4) and 95% or higher (BI-RADS category 5) to predict the presence of malignancy.ConclusionUsing likelihood estimates, radiologists may predict the presence of invasive cancer with fairly high accuracy. Radiologist-assigned estimated percentage likelihood can predict the presence of DCIS, albeit with lower accuracy than that for invasive cancer.

Project description:Importance:Recent recognition of the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by mammography has led to the development of clinical trials randomizing women with non-high-grade DCIS to active surveillance, defined as imaging surveillance with or without endocrine therapy, vs standard surgical care. Objective:To determine the factors associated with underestimation of invasive cancer in patients with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS that would preclude active surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective cohort study was conducted using records from the National Cancer Database from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2012, of female patients 40 to 99 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS who underwent definitive surgical treatment. Data analysis was conducted from November 1, 2015, to February 4, 2017. Exposures:Patients with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma vs those with a diagnosis of DCIS based on final surgical pathologic findings. Main Outcomes and Measures:The proportions of cases with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma from final surgical pathologic findings were compared by tumor, host, and system characteristics. Results:Of 37?544 women (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [12.4] years) presenting with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS, 8320 (22.2%) had invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings. Invasive carcinomas were more likely to be smaller (>0.5 to ?1.0 cm vs ?0.5 cm: odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79; >1.0 to ?2.0 cm vs ?0.5 cm: OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.39-0.46; >2.0 to ?5.0 cm vs ?0.5 cm: OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.17-0.22; and >5.0 cm vs ?0.5 cm: OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.08-0.15) and lower grade (intermediate vs low: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that younger age (60-79 vs 40-49 years: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92; and ?80 vs 40 to 49 years: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91), negative estrogen receptor status (positive vs negative: OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.34-0.43), treatment at an academic facility (academic vs community: OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.82-2.38), and higher annual income (>$63?000 vs <$38?000: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28) were significantly associated with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings. Conclusions and Relevance:When selecting patients for active surveillance of DCIS, factors other than tumor biology associated with invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings may need to be considered. At the time of randomization to active surveillance, a significant proportion of patients with non-high-grade DCIS will harbor invasive carcinoma.

Project description:Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a biologically heterogenous entity with uncertain risk for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) development. Standard treatment is surgical resection often followed by radiation. New approaches are needed to reduce overtreatment. This was an observational study that enrolled patients with DCIS who chose not to pursue surgical resection from 2002 to 2019 at a single academic medical center. All patients underwent breast MRI exams at 3- to 6-month intervals. Patients with hormone receptor-positive disease received endocrine therapy. Surgical resection was strongly recommended if clinical or radiographic evidence of disease progression developed. A recursive partitioning (R-PART) algorithm incorporating breast MRI features and endocrine responsiveness was used retrospectively to stratify risk of IDC. A total of 71 patients were enrolled, 2 with bilateral DCIS (73 lesions). A total of 34 (46.6%) were premenopausal, 68 (93.2%) were hormone-receptor positive, and 60 (82.1%) were intermediate- or high-grade lesions. Mean follow-up time was 8.5 years. Over half (52.1%) remained on active surveillance without evidence of IDC with mean duration of 7.4 years. Twenty patients developed IDC, of which 6 were HER2 positive. DCIS and subsequent IDC had highly concordant tumor biology. Risk of IDC was characterized by MRI features after 6 months of endocrine therapy exposure; low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were identified with respective IDC rates of 8.7%, 20.0%, and 68.2%. Thus, active surveillance consisting of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy and serial breast MRI may be an effective tool to risk-stratify patients with DCIS and optimally select medical or surgical management.SignificanceA retrospective analysis of 71 patients with DCIS who did not undergo upfront surgery demonstrated that breast MRI features after short-term exposure to endocrine therapy identify those at high (68.2%), intermediate (20.0%), and low risk (8.7%) of IDC. With 7.4 years mean follow-up, 52.1% of patients remain on active surveillance. A period of active surveillance offers the opportunity to risk-stratify DCIS lesions and guide decisions for operative management.

Project description:Background Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred treatment for patients with very low-and low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is underperformed worldwide. This study aimed to report knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of AS for PCa among urologists in Brazil. Methods This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire with 50 questions divided into participant characteristics, knowledge regarding inclusion criteria for AS, follow-up, intervention triggers, acceptance, and practice for an index patient. Data analysis comprises absolute and relative frequencies of the variables. After that, a logistic regression was performed in order to verify possible patterns of answers provided by the respondents in the index patient questionnaire. Results Questionnaires were sent through the SurveyMonkey® platform to 5,015 urologists using email addresses and through social media. A total of 600 (12%) questionnaires returned and 413 (8.2%) were completed and included in the analysis. Only 53% of urologists adopt AS for low- and very-low-risk PCa. Inclusion criteria were patients with age > 50 years (32.2%), prostate specific antigen (PSA) < 10 ng/mL (87.2%), T1 clinical stage (80.4%), Biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6, positive cores ≤ 2 (44.3%), positive core involvement < 50% (45.3%), and magnetic resonance imaging findings (38.7%). The PSA doubling time was still used by 60.3%. Confirmatory biopsy (55.9%), PSA level (36.6%), and digital rectal examination (34.4%) were considered by most urologists for follow-ups. Patient preference (85.7%), upgrade of Gleason score (73.4%), and increased number of positive cores (66.8%) were associated with conversion to definitive treatment. In an index patient, non-acceptance and active treatment request were the most cited reasons for not performing AS. Conclusion There is significant variability in the KAP of AS in Brazil, which indicates the need to reinforce AS, its inclusion and follow-up criteria, and the benefits for physicians and the general population. Trial registration: Not applicable. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-022-01036-1.

Project description:Background: Ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) is a pre-invasive form of invasive breast cancer (IBC). Due to improved breast cancer screening, it now accounts for ~25% of all breast cancers. While the treatment success rates are over 90%, this comes at the cost of considerable morbidity, considering that the majority of DCIS never become invasive and our understanding of the molecular changes occurring in DCIS that predispose to invasive disease is limited. The aim of this study is to characterize molecular changes that occur in DCIS, with the goal of improving DCIS risk stratification. Methods: We identified and obtained a total of 197 breast tissue samples from 5 institutions (93 DCIS progressors, 93 DCIS non-progressors, and 11 adjacent normal breast tissues) that had at least 10-year follow-up. We isolated DNA and RNA from archival tissue blocks and characterized genome-wide mRNA expression, DNA methylation, DNA copy number variation, and RNA splicing variation. Results: We obtained all four genomic data sets in 122 of the 197 samples. Our intrinsic expression subtype-stratified analyses identified multiple molecular differences both between DCIS subtypes and between DCIS and IBC. While there was heterogeneity in molecular signatures and outcomes within intrinsic subtypes, several gene sets that differed significantly between progressing and non-progressing DCIS were identified by Gene Set Enrichment Analysis. Conclusions: DCIS is a molecularly highly heterogenous disease with variable outcomes, and the molecular events determining DCIS disease progression remain poorly defined. Our genome-wide multi-omic survey documents DCIS-associated alterations and reveals molecular heterogeneity within the intrinsic DCIS subtypes. Further studies investigating intrinsic subtype-stratified characteristics and molecular signatures are needed to determine if these may be exploitable for risk assessment and mitigation of DCIS progression. The highly significant associations of specific gene sets with IBC progression revealed by our Gene Set Enrichment Analysis may lend themselves to the development of a prognostic molecular score, to be validated on independent DCIS cohorts.