Dataset Information

Prediction Models and Decision Aids for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Systematic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: Even though Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) can potentially be an invasive breast cancer (IBC) precursor, most DCIS lesions never will progress to IBC if left untreated. Because we cannot predict yet which DCIS lesions will and which will not progress, almost all women with DCIS are treated by breast-conserving surgery +/- radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. As a consequence, many women with non-progressive DCIS carry the burden of intensive treatment without any benefit. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to optimize DCIS management, aiming to find the balance between over- and undertreatment. In this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and added value of such tools. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline(ovid), Embase(ovid), Scopus and TRIP. Following the PRISMA guidelines, publications were selected. The CHARMS (prediction models) or IPDAS (decision aids) checklist were used to evaluate the tools' methodological quality. Thirty-three publications describing four decision aids and six prediction models were included. The decision aids met at least 50% of the IPDAS criteria. However, most lacked tools to facilitate discussion of the information with healthcare providers. Five prediction models quantify the risk of an ipsilateral breast event after a primary DCIS, one estimates the risk of contralateral breast cancer, and none included active surveillance. Good quality and external validations were lacking for all prediction models. There remains an unmet clinical need for well-validated, good-quality DCIS risk prediction models and decision aids in which active surveillance is included as a management option for low-risk DCIS.

SUBMITTER: Schmitz RSJM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9265509 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuctal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is considered a component of the clinical spectrum of breast cancer even in those with BRCA1/2 mutation. The aim of this study was to report the feature of DCIS raised in Japanese women with BRCA1/2 mutations.MethodsA total of 325 Japanese women with breast cancer (BC) (with or without invasive cancer) were referred for genetic counseling and underwent genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Showa University Hospital between December 2011 and August 2016. And 49 of them who were pathologically diagnosed as DCIS were included in this study. Logistic regression models were fit to determine the associations between potential predictive factors and BRCA status. A Cox proportional hazards model is used to predictive value of parameters for Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and contralateral breast tumor recurrence (CBTR).Results(a) Of 325 patients (with or without invasive cancer), 19.1% (62/325) tested positive for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. And 18.4% (9/49) was positive for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in DCIS, compared with 19.2% (53/276) in IDC (p = 1.000). Among BRCA mutations, 14.5% (9/62) had DCIS compared with nonmutations (15.2%, 40/263). Incidence of DCIS was 3.0% (1/33) of BRCA1 mutations and 27.5% (8/29) of BRCA2 mutation (p = 0.009). (b) Median age of diagnosis in BRCA mutation carriers was 39 years, compared with 46 years in noncarriers. Age, Family history (FH) of BC, FH of first or second BC and total number of relatives with BC diagnosis (DX) has significant difference between BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers in univariate analysis. In a multivariate logistic model, total relatives with BC DX ≥ 2 (odds ratio [OR], 5.128; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.266-20.763; p = 0.022), age at diagnosis ≤35 years (OR 0.149, 95% CI 0.023-0.954, p = 0.045) and ER+/HER2+ status (OR 5.034, 95% CI 1.092-23.210, p = 0.038) remained as independent significant predictors for BRCA mutation. Ki67 index (cut off by 14% or 30%) did not differ between BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers (p = 0.459 and p = 0.651). (c) There was a significant difference in ER-positive tumors among BRCA2 carriers and noncarriers (p = 0.042). Subgroup analysis showed BRCA2 carriers tend to be of higher grade (Grade 2 and 3), more frequently ER+/PR+ (p = 0.041) and lower proliferation (Ki67 index) than noncarriers, whereas differences in nuclear grade and ki67 index were not found significantly in our study. (d) BRCA mutation was not associated with an increased risk of IBTR and CBTR.ConclusionDCIS is equally as prevalent in patients who were BRCA mutation carriers as in high familial-risk women who were noncarriers, but occurs at earlier age. BRCA2 carriers have higher incidence in DCIS than that of BRCA1 carriers, and tend to be higher grade and more frequently ER positive and lower proliferation. Total relatives with BC DX ≥2, age at diagnosis ≤35 years and ER+/HER2+ might be independent predictors for BRCA mutation in Japanese women with DCIS and patients of these risk factors should be recommended to receive genetic counseling and BRCA testing.

Project description:To implement informed shared decision-making (ISDM) in breast care centres, we developed and piloted an inter-professional complex intervention.We developed an intervention consisting of three components: an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ, a decision-coaching led by specialised nurses (breast care nurses and oncology nurses) and structured physician encounters. In order to enable professionals to gain ISDM competencies, we developed and tested a curriculum-based training programme for specialised nurses and a workshop for physicians. After successful testing of the components, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the entire revised intervention in two breast care centres. Here the acceptance of the intervention by women and professionals, the applicability to the breast care centres' procedures, women's knowledge, patient involvement in treatment decision-making assessed with the MAPPIN'SDM-observer instrument MAPPIN'Odyad, and barriers to and facilitators of the implementation were taken into consideration. We used questionnaires, structured verbal and written feedback and video recordings. Qualitative data were analysed descriptively, and mean values and ranges of quantitative data were calculated.To test the DA, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 27 women. Six expert reviews were obtained. The components of the nurse training were tested with 18 specialised nurses and 19 health science students. The development and piloting of the components were successful. The pilot test of the entire intervention included seven patients. In general, the intervention is applicable. Patients attained adequate knowledge (range of correct answers: 9-11 of 11). On average, a basic level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was observed for nurses and patient-nurse dyads (M(MAPPIN-Odyad): 2.15 and M(MAPPIN-Onurse): 1.90). Relevant barriers were identified; physicians barely tolerated women's preferences that were not in line with the medical recommendation. Classifying women as inappropriate for ISDM due to age or education led physicians to neglect eligible women during the recruitment phase.Decision-coaching is feasible. Nevertheless, there are some indications that structural changes are needed for long-term implementation. We are currently evaluating the intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 breast care centres.

Project description:BackgroundNegative margins are associated with reduced risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). However, there is no consensus about the best minimum margin width.MethodsWe searched the PubMed database for studies of DCIS published in English between January 1970 and July 2010 and examined the relationship between IBTR and margin status after BCS for DCIS. Women with DCIS were stratified into two groups, BCS with or without radiotherapy. We used frequentist and Bayesian approaches to estimate the odds ratios (OR) of IBTR for groups with negative margins and positive margins. We further examined specific margin thresholds using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression techniques. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsWe identified 21 studies published in 24 articles. A total of 1066 IBTR events occurred in 7564 patients, including BCS alone (565 IBTR events in 3098 patients) and BCS with radiotherapy (501 IBTR events in 4466 patients). Compared with positive margins, negative margins were associated with reduced risk of IBTR in patients with radiotherapy (OR = 0.46, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.35 to 0.59), and in patients without radiotherapy (OR = 0.34, 95% CrI = 0.24 to 0.47). Compared with patients with positive margins, the risk of IBTR for patients with negative margins was smaller (negative margin >0 mm, OR = 0.45, 95% CrI = 0.38 to 0.53; >2 mm, OR = 0.38, 95% CrI = 0.28 to 0.51; >5 mm, OR = 0.55, 95% CrI = 0.15 to 1.30; and >10 mm, OR = 0.17, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 0.24). Compared with a negative margin greater than 2 mm, a negative margin of at least 10 mm was associated with a lower risk of IBTR (OR = 0.46, 95% CrI = 0.29 to 0.69). We found a probability of .96 that a negative margin threshold greater than 10 mm is the best option compared with other margin thresholds.ConclusionsNegative surgical margins should be obtained for DCIS patients after BCS regardless of radiotherapy. Within cosmetic constraint, surgeons should attempt to achieve negative margins as wide as possible in their first attempt. More studies are needed to understand whether margin thresholds greater than 10 mm are warranted.

Dataset Information

Prediction Models and Decision Aids for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Systematic Literature Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets