Do not contemplate invasive surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ

Radiologist's role in breast cancer staging: providing key information for clinicians

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer, and the 5-year survival rate is largely dependent on disease stage. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer (7th edition) provides a tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification scheme for breast cancer that is important for determining prognosis and treatment. Ascertaining the correct stage of breast cancer can be challenging, and the importance of the radiologist's role has increased over the years. The radiologist should understand how breast cancer stage is assigned and should be familiar with the AJCC's TNM classification scheme. The authors review the AJCC's TNM staging system for breast cancer with emphasis on clinical and preoperative staging, the different imaging modalities used in staging, and the key information that should be conveyed to clinicians. Radiologic information that may alter stage, prognosis, or treatment includes tumor size; number of tumor lesions; total span of disease; regional nodal status (axillary levels I-III, internal mammary, supraclavicular); locoregional invasion (involvement of the pectoralis muscle, skin, nipple, or chest wall); and distant metastases to bone, lung, brain, and liver, among other anatomic structures.

Epidemiology of ductal carcinoma in situ in Western Australia: implications for surgical margins and management

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare published a report examining the characteristics of Australian women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This study identified the characteristics of women who were diagnosed with DCIS in Western Australia (WA) 1996-2005, and built on a national study by determining the rate of second operation and breast cancer events (BCE) in WA.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the WA Cancer Registry and the Hospital Morbidity Database was undertaken. The main outcome measures were histological characteristics, second operation rate, breast cancer events.

RESULTS

A total of 1356 cases of DCIS were diagnosed in WA between 1996 and 2005, with a minimum 5-year follow-up. The age-standardised incidence rate in 2005 was 15.4 per 100,000 women. 72 % of patients received breast-conserving therapy for primary treatment, 18 % of patients requiring a second operation to obtain adequate margins and 35 % of patients received postoperative radiotherapy. 17.3 % of cases had a subsequent BCE, with the 5- and 10-year probabilities being 4.36 and 8.27 %, respectively. A BCE was significantly associated with age (p < 0.001), no second operation (p < 0.001) and no radiotherapy (p = 0.049 recurrence, p = 0.043 invasion).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the need to ensure adequate margins during primary surgery for DCIS is obtained to reduce the need for a second operation or the risk of a subsequent BCE. The consideration of mastectomy versus radiotherapy should be made in conjunction with the identified risk factors, specifically age and whether a second operation was performed.

Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed using an ultrasound-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: can underestimation be predicted preoperatively?

Purpose:

This study was designed to determine the rate of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)underestimation diagnosed after an ultrasound-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy (US-14G-CNB) of breast masses and to compare the clinical and imaging characteristics between trueDCIS and underestimated DCIS identified following surgical excision.

Methods:

Among 3,124 US-14G-CNBs performed for breast masses, 69 lesions in 60 patients were pathologically-determined to be pure DCIS. We classified these patients according to the final pathology after surgical excision as those with invasive ductal carcinoma (underestimated group) and those with DCIS (non-underestimated group). We retrospectively reviewed and compared the clinical and imaging characteristics between the two groups.

Results:

Of the 69 lesions, 21 were shown after surgery to be invasive carcinomas; the rateof DCIS underestimation was 30.4%. There were no statistically significant differences withrespect to the clinical symptoms, age, lesion size, mammographic findings, and ultrasonographic findings except for the presence of abnormal axillary lymph nodes as detected on ultrasound. The lesions in 2 patients in the non-underestimated group (2/41, 4.9%) and 5 patients in the underestimated group (5/19, 26.3%) were associated with abnormal lymph nodes on axillary ultrasound, and the presence of abnormal axillary lymph nodes on ultrasound was tatistically significant (P=0.016).

Conclusion:

We found a 30.4% rate of DCIS underestimation in breast masses based on a US-14G-CNB. The presence of abnormal lymph nodes as detected on axillary ultrasound may be useful to preoperatively predict underestimation.

The pen and the scalpel: effect of diffusion of information on nonclinical variations in surgical treatment

BACKGROUND

As information is disseminated about best practices, variations in patterns of care should diminish over time.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypotheses that differences in rates of a surgical procedure are associated with type of insurance in an era of evolving practice guidelines and that insurance and site differences diminish with time as consensus guidelines disseminate among the medical community.

METHODS

We use lymph node dissection among women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as an example of a procedure with uncertain benefit. Using a sample of 1051 women diagnosed from 1985 through 2000 at 2 geographic sites, we collected detailed demographic, clinical, pathologic, and treatment information through abstraction of multiple medical records. We specified multivariate logistic models with flexible functions of time and time interactions with insurance and treatment site to test hypotheses.

RESULTS

Lymph node dissection rates varied significantly according to site of treatment and insurance status after controlling for clinical, pathologic, treatment, and demographic characteristics. Rates of lymph node dissection decreased over time, and differences in lymph node dissection rates according to site and generosity of insurance were no longer significant by the end of the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that rates of a discretionary surgical procedure differ according to nonclinical factors, such as treatment site and type of insurance, and that such unwarranted variation decreases over time with diminishing uncertainty and in an era of diffusion of clinical guidelines.

Sentinel node procedure is warranted in ductal carcinoma in situ with high risk of occult invasive carcinoma and microinvasive carcinoma treated by mastectomy

Axillary lymph node dissection in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is not warranted because DCIS has no metastatic potential. However, the risk of microinvasive carcinoma (MIC) exists in large DCIS treated by mastectomy. The aim of this series is to evaluate the incidence of lymph node metastases in DCIS and DCIS-MIC. We analyzed retrospectively patients treated in six French cancer centers for pure DCIS or DCIS-MIC. Surgical procedures were lumpectomy or mastectomy associated with an axillary sentinel node (SN) procedure. We included 161 patients suffering from pure DCIS (116/161, 72%) or DCIS-MIC (45/161, 28%). Mean age was 56 years (32-78). We observed underestimation between core biopsy and histological result in 43/142 cases (30%). These data show an association between lesion size, solid subtype, high-grade DCIS, and underestimation. Forty-eight breast conservative procedures were performed and 113 mastectomies (70%). SN procedure was performed using blue dye, technetium, or both. In our series, we selected patients with a high risk of occult invasive carcinoma: high grade (55%), mean size (27 mm), and mastectomy (112). Six SN were found positive (3.7%). In the five patients treated with complete axillary dissection, the SN was the only positive node. SN in DCIS is an interesting procedure but not necessary for all patients. We need to focus on the subgroup with or a high risk of occult MIC: extensive calcifications or palpable mass, DCIS diagnosed by core biopsy and underestimation, multifocality, high grade, large tumor size, MIC, and mastectomy.

Variations in treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: A population-based study in the East Netherlands

AIMS

Differences in treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast were analysed for a geographically defined population in the East Netherlands.

METHODS

Data from the Cancer Registry of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre East Netherlands were analysed for treatment of DCIS in the period between January 1989 and December 2003. The study population consisted of 800 female patients with a first diagnosis of DCIS of whom 798 underwent surgical treatment. The distribution of tumour characteristics and treatment were compared for several time periods.

RESULTS

Surgical treatment was specified for 648 patients: 51% underwent breast-conserving surgery. The proportion of patients treated with breast-conserving surgery increased: 43% in the period 1994-1998 and 55 after 1999 (p<0.01). An axillary staging procedure was performed in 149 patients (19%), of whom 2 (1%) had tumour-involved lymph nodes. Of patients treated with breast-conserving surgery, 133 (40%) received radiation therapy: 7% in the period 1994-1998 compared to 62% after 1999 (p<0.01). Patients (60%) of 50 years or younger were treated with mastectomy compared to 44% in patients aged 50-69 years and 50% in patients of 70 years and older (p<0.01). The rate in use of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery was comparable to both age groups.

CONCLUSION

This study shows variability in the treatment of DCIS in a geographically defined region. Approximately half of all patients were treated with mastectomy and 19% underwent an axillary staging procedure; this may represent aggressive, unwarranted treatment. In contrast, 38% of patients treated with breast-conserving surgery were not treated with radiation therapy after 1999, which may represent under-treatment.

Is there an indication for sentinel node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast? A review

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is defined as a proliferation of malignant epithelial cells within breast ducts without evidence of invasion through the basement membrane. The detection rate of DCIS of the breast has dramatically increased since the mid-1980s as the result of the widespread use of screening mammography. DCIS currently represents about 15-25% of all breast cancers detected in population screening programmes. Although inherently a non-invasive disease, occult invasion with the potential of lymph node metastases may occur. Where performing an axillary lymph node dissection-or-not for DCIS used to be an important dilemma, the same now holds for the sentinel node biopsy. This article reviews the potential role of the sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in patients with DCIS. We conclude that based on the current literature, there is in general no role for a SNB in DCIS. A SNB should only be considered in patients with an excisional biopsy diagnosis of high risk DCIS (grade III with palpable mass or large tumour area by imaging) as well as in patients undergoing mastectomy after a core or excisional biopsy diagnosis of DCIS, although SNB may be contraindicated in many of the latter patients because of lesion size and/or multifocality. Even in these patients the value of a positive SN, containing mostly isolated tumour cells, is questionable.

Ductal carcinoma in situ: Value of sentinel lymph node biopsy

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) represents about 20% of newly diagnosed breast carcinomas. Axillary metastasis is often related to undiagnosed DCIS with microinvasion (DCISM). The aim of this study was to confirm the interest of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in extensive DCIS.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of DCIS or DCISM and axillary lymph node evaluation were selected. Surgical treatment included SLN biopsy and/or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Serial sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and with an immunohistochemical (IHC) method. When a micrometastasis was found, the breast specimen was revised searching for occult microinvasion.

RESULTS

Hundred and forty patients with initial DCIS were enrolled in the study. Node metastasis was identified in 9 patients (7%) of the 128 patients with DCIS and DCISM. At final histology, 4 (10%) of the 39 patients with pure DCIS and SLN biopsy and 1 (7%) of the 14 patients with DCISM and SLN biopsy had axillary micrometastasis. Four of the 12 patients upstaged to invasive carcinoma had metastatic SLNs.

CONCLUSIONS

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is valuable in patients with diffuse DCIS or DCISM who are scheduled for mastectomy in order to search for axillary micrometastases and occult breast microinvasion.

Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ

BACKGROUND

The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has not been well defined. The purpose of our study was to determine when the risk of finding invasive disease on final pathology in patients with an initial diagnosis of DCIS was sufficiently high to justify use of SLNB.

STUDY DESIGN

The records of 398 consecutive patients from our prospective database with an initial diagnosis of DCIS, treated between July 1999 and December 2002, were analyzed. Associations between clinical and pathologic factors and patient selection for SLNB and outcomes were analyzed for significance using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 398 patients, 80 (20%) were found to have invasive disease on final pathology. Multivariate analysis revealed 4 independent predictors of invasive cancer on final pathology: 55 years of age or younger (odds ratio [OR], 2.19; p = 0.024), diagnosis by core-needle biopsy (OR, 3.76; p = 0.006), mammographic DCIS size of at least 4 cm (OR, 2.92; p = 0.001), and high-grade DCIS (OR, 3.06; p = 0.002). A total of 141 patients (35%) underwent SLNB as a component of their initial operation. Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of comedonecrosis (OR, 2.69; p = 0.007) and larger mammographic DCIS size (OR, 1.18; p = 0.0002) were independent predictors of patients' undergoing SLNB. Of these 141 patients, 103 (73%) were diagnosed by core-needle biopsy, 42 (30%) had invasive disease on final pathology, and 14 (10%) had a positive sentinel lymph node: 12 (86%) by hematoxylin and eosin staining and 2 by immunohistochemistry. The only independent predictor of a positive SLN was the presence of a palpable tumor (OR, 4.28, p = 0.042). Of these 14 patients with a positive sentinel node, only 11 (79%) had invasive cancer on final pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

SLNB should not be performed routinely for all patients with an initial diagnosis of DCIS. Risks and benefits of SLNB should be discussed with patients who are younger, are diagnosed by core-needle biopsy, or have large or high-grade DCIS.

Axillary Recurrence in DCIS: Is Axillary Lymphadenectomy Warranted?

Widespread use of screening mammography has resulted in a remarkable increase in the incidence (or detection rate) of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Axillary lymph node involvement in DCIS is reported to occur at a frequency of 1–12 per cent. Over the past few years, however, there has been increasing emphasis on axillary sampling, limited axillary dissection, and the potential role of sentinel lymph node biopsy. The clinical relevance of axillary lymph node biopsy or dissection remains unanswered. This retrospective analysis was performed on 171 patients who underwent treatment for DCIS at a tertiary care center over a period of 14 years. Clinical and tumor factors were evaluated, and the local, axillary, and systemic recurrence rates were noted. No axillary recurrences from the primary DCIS diagnosis were noted in the entire group of 171 patients. During a mean follow-up of 70 months, 10 patients (6%) developed recurrence in the ipsilateral breast. Six of these recurrences were in the form of DCIS, whereas, four recurred as invasive cancers. Nine patients developed a new primary (seven DCIS and two invasive) in the same breast but in a different quadrant. Two patients with ipsilateral invasive disease also developed systemic disease and eventually died of disease. During the same period, 10 patients (6%) developed DCIS, and seven patients (4%) developed invasive cancer in the contralateral breast. The data show that the risk of axillary recurrence in pure DCIS is, at most, extremely low and support the position that nodal sampling or dissection is unwarranted.

Local and national trends over a decade in the surgical treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ

BACKGROUND

Ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) is an increasingly frequent diagnosis in breast cancer, and management continues to challenge surgeons and oncologists. The purpose of our study was to examine local and national rates of breast conservation surgery and breast reconstruction surgery and to explore patient and surgeon factors associated with the procedures.

METHODS

Review of the 1,342 patients in our institutional breast cancer database yielded 211 patients with DCIS. The sample of 211 patients was compared with a national (Nationwide Inpatient Sample [NIS]) database. Patient and surgeon factors associated with the use of breast conservative surgery (BCS) and breast reconstruction (BR) postmastectomy were identified.

RESULTS

At our institution, the use of BCS steadily increased over ten years. Younger women with nonpalpable tumors, nonprivate insurance, and younger surgeons were more likely to have BCS. In 28 patients, breast reconstruction was performed: younger Caucasian women with private insurance and younger surgeons were more likely to undergo reconstruction. NIS data revealed that BCS was performed in 20% but that BCS did not increase over the 12-year period.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a steady increase in the use of BCS for DCIS at our institution, but a consistent, and much lower, use nationally. To increase breast conservation and reconstruction for DCIS, educational efforts should especially be directed toward elderly women and elderly surgeons.