"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ

DCIS knowledge of women choosing between active surveillance and surgery for low-risk DCIS

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but often never will. As we cannot predict accurately which DCIS-lesions will or will not progress to IBC, almost all women with DCIS undergo breast-conserving surgery supplemented with radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. In some countries, endocrine treatment is prescribed as well. This implies many women with non-progressive DCIS undergo overtreatment. To reduce this, the LORD patient preference trial (LORD-PPT) tests whether mammographic active surveillance (AS) is safe by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between treatment and AS. For this, sufficient knowledge about DCIS is crucial. Therefore, we assessed women's DCIS knowledge in association with socio-demographic and clinical characteristics.

METHODS

LORD-PPT participants (N = 376) completed a questionnaire assessing socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, risk perception, treatment choice and DCIS knowledge after being informed about their diagnosis and treatment options.

RESULTS

66 % of participants had poor knowledge (i.e., answered ≤3 out of 7 knowledge items correctly). Most incorrect answers involved overestimating the safety of AS and misunderstanding of DCIS prognostic risks. Overall, women with higher DCIS knowledge score perceived their risk of developing IBC as being somewhat higher than women with poorer knowledge (p = 0.049). Women with better DCIS knowledge more often chose surgery whilst most women with poorer knowledge chose active surveillance (p = 0.049).

DISCUSSION

Our findings show that there is room for improvement of information provision to patients. Decision support tools for patients and clinicians could help to stimulate effective shared decision-making about DCIS management.

Tools to Guide Radiation Oncologists in the Management of DCIS

Similar to invasive breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ is also going through a phase of changes not only from a technical but also a conceptual standpoint. From prescribing radiotherapy to everyone to personalized approaches, including radiotherapy omission, there is still a lack of a comprehensive framework to guide radiation oncologists in decision making. Many pieces of the puzzle are finding their place as high-quality data mature and are disseminated, but very often, the interpretation of risk factors and the perception of risk remain very highly subjective. Sharing the therapeutic choice with patients requires effective communication for an understanding of risks and benefits, facilitating an informed decision that does not increase anxiety and concerns about prognosis. The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize the current state of knowledge to highlight the tools available to radiation oncologists for managing DCIS, with an outlook on future developments.

Personalizing the Treatment of Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Using the DCIS Score: A Qualitative Study on Score Use

BACKGROUND

A twelve-gene molecular expression assay (DCIS score) may help guide radiation oncology treatment under specific circumstances. We undertook a study to examine radiation oncologist (RO), surgeon, and decision maker views on implementing the DCIS score in practice for women with low-risk DCIS.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study involving telephone interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers conducted a thematic analysis of transcripts.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight individuals (ROs, breast cancer surgeons, and cancer policy decision makers) were invited to participate; 22 out of the 28 people (79%) agreed. The final sample included 20 participants: 11 of 13 (85%) ROs, 5 of 7 (71%) surgeons, and 4 of 8 (50%) decision makers. Most ROs expressed concerns about overtreatment but could not predict with certainty which low-risk patients could safely avoid radiation. The DCIS score was viewed as contributing valuable personalized risk information as part of treatment decision making that included clinicopathological factors and women's preferences. Future implementation would require guidelines with input from the oncology team.

CONCLUSIONS

ROs had concerns about the overtreatment of women with DCIS, but lacked the tools to reliably predict which women could safely avoid radiation. By providing oncologists and women with personalized tumor information, the DCIS score was an important component of treatment decision making.

Duration of Endocrine Treatment for DCIS impacts second events: Insights from a large cohort of cases at two academic medical centers

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) incidence has risen rapidly with the introduction of screening mammography, yet it is unclear who benefits from both the amount and type of adjuvant treatment (radiation therapy, (RT), endocrine therapy (ET)) versus what constitutes over-treatment. Our goal was to identify the effects of adjuvant RT, or ET+/- RT versus breast conservation surgery (BCS) alone in a large multi-center registry of retrospective DCIS cases (N = 1,916) with median follow up of 8.2 years. We show that patients with DCIS who took less than 2 years of adjuvant ET alone have a similar second event rate as BCS. However, patients who took more than 2 years of ET show a significantly reduced second event rate, similar to those who received either RT or combined ET+RT, which was independent of age, tumor size, grade, or period of diagnosis. This highlights the importance of ET duration for risk reduction.

Collagen-Binding Nanoparticles for Paclitaxel Encapsulation and Breast Cancer Treatment

In this study, we developed a novel hybrid collagen-binding nanocarrier for potential intraductal administration and local breast cancer treatment. The particles were formed by the encapsulation of nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) containing the cytotoxic drug paclitaxel within a shell of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (pNIPAM), and were functionalized with SILY, a peptide that binds to collagen type I (which is overexpressed in the mammary tumor microenvironment) to improve local retention and selectivity. The encapsulation of the NLCs in the pNIPAM shell increased nanoparticle size by approximately 140 nm, and after purification, a homogeneous system of hybrid nanoparticles (∼96%) was obtained. The nanoparticles exhibited high loading efficiency (<76%) and were capable of prolonging paclitaxel release for up to 120 h. SILY-modified nanoparticles showed the ability to bind to collagen-coated surfaces and naturally elaborated collagen. Hybrid nanoparticles presented cytotoxicity up to 3.7-fold higher than pNIPAM-only nanoparticles on mammary tumor cells cultured in monolayers. In spheroids, the increase in cytotoxicity was up to 1.8-fold. Compared to lipid nanoparticles, the hybrid nanoparticle modified with SILY increased the viability of nontumor breast cells by up to 1.59-fold in a coculture model, suggesting the effectiveness and safety of the system.

DCIS and LCIS: Are the Risk Factors for Developing In Situ Breast Cancer Different?

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is widely accepted as a precursor of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is considered a risk factor for invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), and it is unclear whether LCIS is also a precursor. Therefore, it would be expected that similar risk factors predispose to both DCIS and IDC, but not necessarily LCIS and ILC. This study examined associations with risk factors using data from 3075 DCIS cases, 338 LCIS cases, and 1584 controls aged 35-60, recruited from the UK-based GLACIER and ICICLE case-control studies between 2007 and 2012. Analysis showed that breastfeeding in parous women was protective against DCIS and LCIS, which is consistent with research on invasive breast cancer (IBC). Additionally, long-term use of HRT in post-menopausal women increased the risk of DCIS and LCIS, with a stronger association in LCIS, similar to the association with ILC. Contrary to findings with IBC, parity and the number of births were not protective against DCIS or LCIS, while oral contraceptives showed an unexpected protective effect. These findings suggest both similarities and differences in risk factors for DCIS and LCIS compared to IBC and that there may be justification for increased breast surveillance in post-menopausal women taking long-term HRT.

The long-term psychosocial consequences of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a risk factor for invasive breast cancer (IBC). The prognosis of DCIS is considerably better than for IBC, yet women do not distinguish between the threat. We aimed to compare the psychosocial consequences of screen-detected DCIS and IBC, and to examine this comparison over time.

METHODS

We surveyed a Danish mammography-screening cohort from 2004 to 2018. We assessed outcomes at six-time points: baseline, 1, 6, 18, 36 months, and 14 years after the screening. We measured psychosocial consequences with the Consequences Of Screening - Breast Cancer (COS-BC): a condition-specific questionnaire that is psychometrically validated and encompasses 14 psychosocial dimensions. We used weighted linear models with generalized estimating equations to compare responses between groups. We used a 1% level of significance.

RESULTS

170 out of 1309 women were diagnosed with breast cancer (13.0%). 23 were diagnosed with DCIS (13.5%) and 147 with IBC (86.5%). From baseline to six months after diagnosis, there were no significant differences between women with DCIS and IBC. However, mean scores indicated that IBC generally was more affected than DCIS. After six months, we observed that women with DCIS and IBC might be affected differently in the long term; mean scores and mean differences showed that IBC were more affected on some scales, while DCIS were on others.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the DCIS and IBC experienced similar levels of psychosocial consequences. Women might benefit from renaming DCIS to exclude cancer nomenclature.

Countercurrents: DCIS or Cancer? Why All the Confusion?

At present, women with ductal carcinoma in situ are counseled that they have a pre-malignant condition which carries the possibility of progression to a fully malignant breast cancer. However, in most cases, the treatment of DCIS resembles that of a small invasive breast cancer and this is a source of confusion to many. In order to properly evaluate the benefit of radiotherapy, mastectomy and contralateral mastectomy, it is necessary to consider the risks of ipsilateral invasive cancer and of contralateral breast cancer in women with DCIS and with small invasive breast cancer. Several registry-based studies indicate that the risks of ipsilateral and contralateral cancer are similar in the two conditions and therefore a similar approach to treatment is rational.