Treating (low-risk) DCIS patients: What can we learn from real-world cancer registry evidence?

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.

Growth Dynamics of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Recapitulate Normal Breast Development

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer share many morphologic, proteomic, and genomic alterations. Yet in contrast to invasive cancer, many DCIS tumors do not progress and may remain indolent over decades. To better understand the heterogenous nature of this disease, we reconstructed the growth dynamics of 18 DCIS tumors based on the geo-spatial distribution of their somatic mutations. The somatic mutation topographies revealed that DCIS is multiclonal and consists of spatially discontinuous subclonal lesions. Here we show that this pattern of spread is consistent with a new 'Comet' model of DCIS tumorigenesis, whereby multiple subclones arise early and nucleate the buds of the growing tumor. The discontinuous, multiclonal growth of the Comet model is analogous to the branching morphogenesis of normal breast development that governs the rapid expansion of the mammary epithelium during puberty. The branching morphogenesis-like dynamics of the proposed Comet model diverges from the canonical model of clonal evolution, and better explains observed genomic spatial data. Importantly, the Comet model allows for the clinically relevant scenario of extensive DCIS spread, without being subjected to the selective pressures of subclone competition that promote the emergence of increasingly invasive phenotypes. As such, the normal cell movement inferred during DCIS growth provides a new explanation for the limited risk of progression in DCIS and adds biologic rationale for ongoing clinical efforts to reduce DCIS overtreatment.

Women's views about current and future management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS): A mixed-methods study

Management of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is controversial, with clinical trials currently assessing the safety of active monitoring amidst concern about overtreatment. Little is known about general community views regarding DCIS and its management. We aimed to explore women's understanding and views about low-risk DCIS and current and potential future management options. This mixed-method study involved qualitative focus groups and brief quantitative questionnaires. Participants were screening-aged (50-74 years) women, with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and no personal history of breast cancer/DCIS, recruited from across metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Sessions incorporated an informative presentation interspersed with group discussions which were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Fifty-six women took part in six age-stratified focus groups. Prior awareness of DCIS was limited, however women developed reasonable understanding of DCIS and the relevant issues. Overall, women expressed substantial support for active monitoring being offered as a management approach for low-risk DCIS, and many were interested in participating in a hypothetical clinical trial. Although some women expressed concern that current management may sometimes represent overtreatment, there were mixed views about personally accepting monitoring. Women noted a number of important questions and considerations that would factor into their decision making. Our findings about women's perceptions of active monitoring for DCIS are timely while results of ongoing clinical trials of monitoring are awaited, and may inform clinicians and investigators designing future, similar trials. Exploration of offering well-informed patients the choice of non-surgical management of low-risk DCIS, even outside a clinical trial setting, may be warranted.

Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review

BACKGROUND

Population mammographic screening for breast cancer has led to large increases in the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Active surveillance has been proposed as a management strategy for low-risk DCIS to mitigate against potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, clinicians and patients remain reluctant to choose active surveillance, even within a trial setting. Re-calibration of the diagnostic threshold for low-risk DCIS and/or use of a label that does not include the word 'cancer' might encourage the uptake of active surveillance and other conservative treatment options. We aimed to identify and collate relevant epidemiological evidence to inform further discussion on these ideas.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for low-risk DCIS studies in four categories: (1) natural history; (2) subclinical cancer found at autopsy; (3) diagnostic reproducibility (two or more pathologist interpretations at a single time point); and (4) diagnostic drift (two or more pathologist interpretations at different time points). Where we identified a pre-existing systematic review, the search was restricted to studies published after the inclusion period of the review. Two authors screened records, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. We undertook a narrative synthesis of the included evidence within each category.

RESULTS

Natural History (n = 11): one systematic review and nine primary studies were included, but only five provided evidence on the prognosis of women with low-risk DCIS. These studies reported that women with low-risk DCIS had comparable outcomes whether or not they had surgery. The risk of invasive breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 6.5% (7.5 years) to 10.8% (10 years). The risk of dying from breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 1.2 to 2.2% (10 years). Subclinical cancer at autopsy (n = 1): one systematic review of 13 studies estimated the mean prevalence of subclinical in situ breast cancer to be 8.9%. Diagnostic reproducibility (n = 13): two systematic reviews and 11 primary studies found at most moderate agreement in differentiating low-grade DCIS from other diagnoses. Diagnostic drift: no studies found.

CONCLUSION

Epidemiological evidence supports consideration of relabelling and/or recalibrating diagnostic thresholds for low-risk DCIS. Such diagnostic changes would need agreement on the definition of low-risk DCIS and improved diagnostic reproducibility.

Changes in breast cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Dutch population-based study

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare (1) treatments and time intervals between treatments of breast cancer patients diagnosed during and before the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) the number of treatments started during and before the pandemic.

METHODS

Women were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. For aim one, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated to compare the treatment of women diagnosed within four periods of 2020: pre-COVID (weeks 1-8), transition (weeks 9-12), lockdown (weeks 13-17), and care restart (weeks 18-26), with data from 2018/2019 as reference. Wilcoxon rank-sums test was used to compare treatment intervals, using a two-sided p-value < 0.05. For aim two, number of treatments started per week in 2020 was compared with 2018/2019.

RESULTS

We selected 34,097 women for aim one. Compared to 2018/2019, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was less likely for stage I (OR 0.24, 95%CI 0.11-0.53), stage II (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.47-0.86), and hormone receptor+/HER2- tumors (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41-0.75) diagnosed during transition. Time between diagnosis and first treatment decreased for patients diagnosed during lockdown with a stage I (p < 0.01), II (p < 0.01) or III tumor (p = 0.01). We selected 30,002 women for aim two. The number of neo-adjuvant endocrine therapies and surgeries starting in week 14, 2020, increased by 339% and 18%, respectively. The number of adjuvant chemotherapies decreased by 42% in week 15 and increased by 44% in week 22.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic and subsequently altered treatment recommendations affected multiple aspects of the breast cancer treatment strategy and the number of treatments started per week.

Radiological Underestimation of Tumor Size as a Relevant Risk Factor for Positive Margin Rate in Breast-Conserving Therapy of Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)

Background: Radiological underestimation of the actual tumor size is a relevant problem in reaching negative margins in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) associated with microcalcifications in breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the radiological underestimation of tumor size has an influence on the histopathological margin status. Methods: Patients who underwent BCT with preoperatively diagnosed pure DCIS were included (pooled analysis of two trials). Multiple factors were analysed regarding radiological underestimation ≥10 mm. Radiological underestimation was defined as mammographic minus histological tumor size in mm. Results: Positive margins occurred in 75 of 189 patients. Radiological underestimation ≥10 mm was an independent influencing factor (OR 5.80; 95%CI 2.55−13.17; p < 0.001). A radiological underestimation was seen in 70 patients. The following parameters were statistically significant associated with underestimation: pleomorphic microcalcifications (OR 3.77; 95%CI 1.27−11.18), clustered distribution patterns (OR 4.26; 95%CI 2.25−8.07), and mammographic tumor sizes ≤20 mm (OR 7.47; 95%CI 3.49−15.99). Only a mammographic tumor size ≤20 mm was an independent risk factor (OR 6.49; 95%CI 2.30−18.26; p < 0.001). Grading, estrogen receptor status, and comedo necrosis did not influence the size estimation. Conclusion: Radiological underestimation is an independent risk factor for positive margins in BCT of DCIS associated with microcalcifications predominantly occurring in mammographic small tumors.

Prediction of Upstaging in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Based on Mammographic Radiomic Features

Background Improving diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) before surgery is important in choosing optimal patient management strategies. However, patients may harbor occult invasive disease not detected until definitive surgery. Purpose To assess the performance and clinical utility of mammographic radiomic features in the prediction of occult invasive cancer among women diagnosed with DCIS on the basis of core biopsy findings. Materials and Methods In this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study, digital magnification mammographic images were collected from women who underwent breast core-needle biopsy for calcifications that was performed at a single institution between September 2008 and April 2017 and yielded a diagnosis of DCIS. The database query was directed at asymptomatic women with calcifications without a mass, architectural distortion, asymmetric density, or palpable disease. Logistic regression with regularization was used. Differences across training and internal test set by upstaging rate, age, lesion size, and estrogen and progesterone receptor status were assessed by using the Kruskal-Wallis or χ² test. Results The study consisted of 700 women with DCIS (age range, 40-89 years; mean age, 59 years ± 10 [standard deviation]), including 114 with lesions (16.3%) upstaged to invasive cancer at subsequent surgery. The sample was split randomly into 400 women for the training set and 300 for the testing set (mean ages: training set, 59 years ± 10; test set, 59 years ± 10; P = .85). A total of 109 radiomic and four clinical features were extracted. The best model on the test set by using all radiomic and clinical features helped predict upstaging with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.79). For a fixed high sensitivity (90%), the model yielded a specificity of 22%, a negative predictive value of 92%, and an odds ratio of 2.4 (95% CI: 1.8, 3.2). High specificity (90%) corresponded to a sensitivity of 37%, positive predictive value of 41%, and odds ratio of 5.0 (95% CI: 2.8, 9.0). Conclusion Machine learning models that use radiomic features applied to mammographic calcifications may help predict upstaging of ductal carcinoma in situ, which can refine clinical decision making and treatment planning. © RSNA, 2022.

Low-risk DCIS. What is it? Observe or excise?

The issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of lesions detected by breast screening mammography has been debated in both international media and the scientific literature. A proportion of cancers detected by breast screening would never have presented symptomatically or caused harm during the patient's lifetime. The most likely (but not the only) entity which may represent those overdiagnosed and overtreated is low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In this article, we address what is understood regarding the natural history of DCIS and the diagnosis and prognosis of low-grade DCIS. However, low cytonuclear grade disease may not be the totality of DCIS that can be considered of low clinical risk and we outline the issues regarding active surveillance vs excision of low-risk DCIS and the clinical trials exploring this approach.