Current Approaches to Diagnosis and Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Future Directions

Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: Analysis of 270 Consecutive Patients Treated in a 9-Year Period

Simple Summary

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for 20 to 25% of all breast cancers and its incidence of progression to invasive ductal carcinoma is at least 13 to 50%. The aim of our retrospective observational analysis is to review the issues of this histological type of cancer. We confirmed in a wide population of 270 consecutive patients who underwent surgery in a single institute that the management of DCIS can be difficult and particularly complex. There are many variables to be taken into consideration such as the choice of the diagnostic and bioptical technique. This delicate management must be carried out in specialized centres such as Breast Units involving multiple professional figures to define and guarantee the best possible treatment for each patient.

Abstract

Introduction: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is an intraductal neoplastic proliferation of epithelial cells that are confined within the basement membrane of the breast ductal system. This retrospective observational analysis aims at reviewing the issues of this histological type of cancer. Materials and methods: Patients treated for DCIS between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018 were identified from a retrospective database. The patients were divided into two groups of 5 years each, the first group including patients treated from 2009 to 2013, and the second group including patients treated from 2014 to 2018. Once the database was completed, we performed a statistical analysis to see if there were significant differences among the 2 periods. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism software for Windows, and the level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: 3586 female patients were treated for breast cancer over the 9-year study period (1469 patients from 2009 to 2013 and 2117 from 2014 to 2018), of which 270 (7.53%) had pure DCIS in the final pathology. The median age of diagnosis was 59-year-old (range 36–86). In the first period, 81 (5.5%) women out of 1469 had DCIS in the final pathology, in the second, 189 (8.9%) out of 2117 had DCIS in the final pathology with a statistically significant increase (p = 0.0001). From 2009 to 2013, only 38 (46.9%) were in stage 0 (correct DCIS diagnosis) while in the second period, 125 (66.1%) were included in this stage. The number of patients included in clinical stage 0 increased significantly (p = 0.004). In the first period, 48 (59.3%) specimen margins were at a greater or equal distance than 2 mm (negative margins), between 2014 and 2018; 137 (72.5%) had negative margins. Between 2014 and 2018 the number of DCIS patients with positive margins decreased significantly (p = 0.02) compared to the first period examined. The mastectomies number increased significantly (p = 0.008) between the 2 periods, while the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) numbers had no differences (p = 0.29). For both periods analysed all the 253 patients who underwent the follow up are currently living and free of disease. We have conventionally excluded the 17 patients whose data were lost. Conclusion: The choice of the newest imaging techniques and the most suitable biopsy method allows a better pre-operative diagnosis of the DCIS. Surgical treatment must be targeted to the patient and a multidisciplinary approach discussed in the Breast Unit centres.

Analysis of active surveillance as a treatment modality in ductal carcinoma in situ

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a nonobligate precursor of invasive breast cancer. Current clinical trials are exploring active surveillance (AS) of DCIS. The purpose of this study is to characterize current practice trends in the use of AS. The findings may inform clinical trials and provide insight into factors influencing adoption into practice. The National Cancer Database was used to identify women diagnosed with DCIS from 2004 to 2015. Management with AS was defined as any patient not undergoing surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess patterns of AS. Of 84 281 women with DCIS, 342 (0.4%) underwent AS. Increased age (OR 1.16, CI 1.15-1.17), Hispanic or non-Hispanic black ethnicities (OR 1.91 CI 1.42-2.56; 1.54 CI 1.13-2.10), treatment at an academic facility (OR 1.64 CI 1.31-2.10), and low-volume facilities (OR 1.60 CI 1.06-2.42) were associated with an increased use of AS. Patients with ≥1 comorbidities (OR 0.70 CI 0.49-0.98), high-grade tumors (OR 0.671 CI 0.51-0.89), and private insurance (OR 0.69 CI 0.53-0.89) less frequently underwent AS. Of all patients undergoing AS, 11% received endocrine therapy. Active surveillance is currently an infrequently used treatment modality for patients with DCIS. We observed variations in AS based on age, ethnicity, comorbidities, facility type, facility volume, insurance status, and tumor grade. Most patients managed with AS did not receive hormone therapy. This information may further inform strategies for clinical trials, as well as guide quality of care in the adoption of future management options for DCIS.

Generalized linear model (GLM) analysis: Multivariables of microcalcification specimens obtained via X-ray guided by stereotactic wire localization biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively explore correlation of the resected specimen volume of breast microcalcification lesions and endogenous and exogenous factors of stereotactic needle localization biopsy (SNLB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Totally 214 patients underwent SNLB for non-palpable breast lesion with microcalcification lesions. Of 211 patients, 198 patients underwent single needle localization and 13 patients underwent multi-needle localization (26 lesions). Lesion sizes, distribution characteristics, lesion localization accuracy and resected specimen volumes were recorded and analyzed using a generalized linear model (GLM).

RESULTS

The average lesion diameter is 2.63±1.73 cm. The localization accuracy of 187 lesions were moderate, 26 were too deep and 11 were too superficial. The mean resected specimen volume (V) was 17.51±5.14 cm3. One-way ANOVA analysis showed that 3 factors, including lesion sizes, distribution characteristics and the localization accuracy were associated with resected specimen volume (F = 67.56-112.78, P < 0.001). GLM revealed that lesion sizes, single clustered distribution and accurate localization were significant factors for resected specimen volume (F = -4.82-11.36, P < 0.05). The ratio (%) of the resected specimen volume to the involved breast volume (V0) was defined as the degree of breast defect. The mean breast defect of 125 benign patients (V/V0) was 27.5% ranging from 10.1% to 42.3%.

CONCLUSION

Average lesion diameter and localization accuracy are highly significant variables for the resected specimen volume. Localization accuracy as a subjective controllable variable is one of the important factors that determine the volume of lesion resection. Single clustered distribution was more susceptible localization accuracy than other characteristic distributions. Improving localization accuracy can reduce resected specimen volume, which can reduce breast defect to a certain extent.