1
|
Skjerven HK, Myklebust EM, Korvald C, Stubberud K, Hovda T, Porojnicu AC, Kaaresen R, Hofvind S, Schlicting E, Sahlberg KK. Long-term follow-up of complex oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery, standard breast conservation and skin-sparing mastectomy in DCIS - a register-based study. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2024; 50:107938. [PMID: 38199004 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107938] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Revised: 12/10/2023] [Accepted: 12/25/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few studies evaluate oncological safety in complex oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery(C-OBCS) for DCIS. It still needs to be defined whether it is equivalent to standard breast conservation(S-BCS) or an alternative to skin-sparing mastectomy(SSM). This study compares local recurrence rates(LR), disease-free survival(DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the three surgical techniques. METHODS We conducted a retrospective register-based study on LR, DFS and OS of patients operated with S-BCS(n=1388), C-OBCS (n=106) or skin-sparing mastectomy (n=218) for DCIS diagnosed 2007-2020. Data was extracted from the Norwegian Breast Cancer Registry. RESULTS In the S-BCS, C-OBCS and SSM groups, median age was 60, 58 and 51 years (p<0.001), median size 15, 25, and 40 mm (p<0.001) and median follow-up 55, 48 and 76 months. At ten years, the overall LR was 12.7%, 14.3% for S-BCS, 11.2% for C-OBCS and 6.8% for SSM. Overall DFS at ten years was 82.3%, 80.5% for S-BCS, 82.4% for C-OBCS and 90.4% for SSM. At ten years, the OS was 93.8%, 93.0% in S-BCS, 93.3% in C-OBCS and 96.6% in the SSM group. Weighted Kaplan Meier plots showed that SSM had a significantly higher DFS than S-BCS (p=0.003) and C-OBCS (p=0.029). DFS in C-OBCS versus S-BCS and the difference in OS was not significant (p=0.264). CONCLUSION SSM had a significantly higher DFS than S-BCS and C-OBCS. The difference in DFS between S-BCS and C-OBCS, and OS between the three groups was not statistically significant. Our study suggests that C-OBCS is a safe alternative to S-BCS and SSM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helle Kristine Skjerven
- Section for Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
| | - Even Moa Myklebust
- Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Research and Innovation, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway
| | - Christian Korvald
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Kjetil Stubberud
- Section for Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway
| | - Tone Hovda
- Section for Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway
| | | | - Rolf Kaaresen
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Solveig Hofvind
- Department of Health and Care Sciences, The Artic University, UiT, Tromsø, Norway; Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
| | - Ellen Schlicting
- Section for Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Kristine Kleivi Sahlberg
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Research and Innovation, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schmitz RSJM, van den Belt-Dusebout AW, Clements K, Ren Y, Cresta C, Timbres J, Liu YH, Byng D, Lynch T, Menegaz BA, Collyar D, Hyslop T, Thomas S, Love JK, Schaapveld M, Bhattacharjee P, Ryser MD, Sawyer E, Hwang ES, Thompson A, Wesseling J, Lips EH, Schmidt MK. Association of DCIS size and margin status with risk of developing breast cancer post-treatment: multinational, pooled cohort study. BMJ 2023; 383:e076022. [PMID: 37903527 PMCID: PMC10614034 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/27/2023] [Indexed: 11/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the association between size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and risk of developing ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS after treatment, and stage and subtype of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. DESIGN Multinational, pooled cohort study. SETTING Four large international cohorts. PARTICIPANTS Patient level data on 47 695 women with a diagnosis of pure, primary DCIS between 1999 and 2017 in the Netherlands, UK, and US who underwent surgery, either breast conserving or mastectomy, often followed by radiotherapy or endocrine treatment, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcomes were 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS estimated in relation to DCIS size and margin status, and adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses with multiple imputed data RESULTS: The 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 3.2%. In women who underwent breast conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy, only adjusted risks for ipsilateral DCIS were significantly increased for larger DCIS (20-49 mm) compared with DCIS <20 mm (hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.72). Risks for both ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS were significantly higher with involved compared with clear margins (invasive breast cancer 1.40, 1.07 to 1.83; DCIS 1.39, 1.04 to 1.87). Use of adjuvant endocrine treatment was not significantly associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to treatment with breast conserving surgery only (0.86, 0.62 to 1.21). In women who received breast conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy, higher DCIS grade was not significantly associated with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer, only with a higher risk of ipsilateral DCIS (grade 1: 1.42, 1.08 to 1.87; grade 3: 2.17, 1.66 to 2.83). Higher age at diagnosis was associated with lower risk (per year) of ipsilateral DCIS (0.98, 0.97 to 0.99) but not ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (1.00, 0.99 to 1.00). Women with large DCIS (≥50 mm) more often developed stage III and IV ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to women with DCIS <20 mm. No such association was found between involved margins and higher stage of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Associations between larger DCIS and hormone receptor negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and involved margins and hormone receptor negative ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were found. CONCLUSIONS The association of DCIS size and margin status with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS was small. When these two factors were added to other known risk factors in multivariable models, clinicopathological risk factors alone were found to be limited in discriminating between low and high risk DCIS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Renée S J M Schmitz
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | | | - Yi Ren
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Biostatistics Shared Resource Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Chiara Cresta
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jasmine Timbres
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Yat-Hee Liu
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Danalyn Byng
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Thomas Lynch
- Department of Surgery, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Brian A Menegaz
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Terry Hyslop
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Biostatistics Shared Resource Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Samantha Thomas
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Biostatistics Shared Resource Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Jason K Love
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michael Schaapveld
- Division of Psycho-oncology and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute- Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Proteeti Bhattacharjee
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marc D Ryser
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Mathematics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Elinor Sawyer
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK
| | - E Shelley Hwang
- Department of Surgery, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Alastair Thompson
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Division of Diagnostic Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Esther H Lips
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Nachmanson D, Pagadala M, Steward J, Cheung C, Bruce LK, Lee NQ, O'Keefe TJ, Lin GY, Hasteh F, Morris GP, Carter H, Harismendy O. Accurate genome-wide genotyping from archival tissue to explore the contribution of common genetic variants to pre-cancer outcomes. J Transl Med 2022; 20:623. [PMID: 36575447 PMCID: PMC9793518 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03810-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The contribution of common genetic variants to pre-cancer progression is understudied due to long follow-up time, rarity of poor outcomes and lack of available germline DNA collection. Alternatively, DNA from diagnostic archival tissue is available, but its somatic nature, limited quantity and suboptimal quality would require an accurate cost-effective genome-wide germline genotyping methodology. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Blood and tissue DNA from 10 individuals were used to benchmark the accuracy of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) genotypes, Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) or HLA haplotypes using low-coverage whole-genome sequencing (lc-WGS) and genotype imputation. Tissue-derived PRS were further evaluated for 36 breast cancer patients (11.7 years median follow-up time) diagnosed with DCIS and used to model the risk of Breast Cancer Subsequent Events (BCSE). RESULTS Tissue-derived germline DNA profiling resulted in accurate genotypes at common SNPs (blood correlation r2 > 0.94) and across 22 disease-related polygenic risk scores (PRS, mean correlation r = 0.93). Imputed Class I and II HLA haplotypes were 96.7% and 82.5% concordant with clinical-grade blood HLA haplotypes, respectively. In DCIS patients, tissue-derived PRS was significantly associated with BCSE (HR = 2, 95% CI 1.2-3.8). The top and bottom decile patients had an estimated 28% and 5% chance of BCSE at 10 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Archival tissue DNA germline profiling using lc-WGS and imputation, represents a cost and resource-effective alternative in the retrospective design of long-term disease genetic studies. Initial results in breast cancer suggest that common risk variants contribute to pre-cancer progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Nachmanson
- Bioinformatics and Systems Biology Graduate Program, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Meghana Pagadala
- Biomedical Science Graduate Program, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Joseph Steward
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, 3855 Health Science Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Callie Cheung
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, 3855 Health Science Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Lauryn Keeler Bruce
- Bioinformatics and Systems Biology Graduate Program, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Nicole Q Lee
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, 3855 Health Science Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Thomas J O'Keefe
- Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Grace Y Lin
- Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Farnaz Hasteh
- Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Gerald P Morris
- Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Hannah Carter
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, 3855 Health Science Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA
- Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA
| | - Olivier Harismendy
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, 3855 Health Science Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.
- Division of Biomedical Informatics, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Casasent AK, Almekinders MM, Mulder C, Bhattacharjee P, Collyar D, Thompson AM, Jonkers J, Lips EH, van Rheenen J, Hwang ES, Nik-Zainal S, Navin NE, Wesseling J. Learning to distinguish progressive and non-progressive ductal carcinoma in situ. Nat Rev Cancer 2022; 22:663-678. [PMID: 36261705 DOI: 10.1038/s41568-022-00512-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/07/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive breast neoplasia that accounts for 25% of all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed annually. Neoplastic cells in DCIS are confined to the ductal system of the breast, although they can escape and progress to invasive breast cancer in a subset of patients. A key concern of DCIS is overtreatment, as most patients screened for DCIS and in whom DCIS is diagnosed will not go on to exhibit symptoms or die of breast cancer, even if left untreated. However, differentiating low-risk, indolent DCIS from potentially progressive DCIS remains challenging. In this Review, we summarize our current knowledge of DCIS and explore open questions about the basic biology of DCIS, including those regarding how genomic events in neoplastic cells and the surrounding microenvironment contribute to the progression of DCIS to invasive breast cancer. Further, we discuss what information will be needed to prevent overtreatment of indolent DCIS lesions without compromising adequate treatment for high-risk patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna K Casasent
- Department of Genetics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Charlotta Mulder
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Jos Jonkers
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Esther H Lips
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jacco van Rheenen
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Serena Nik-Zainal
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nicholas E Navin
- Department of Genetics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Bioinformatics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|