Kim M, Kim HJ, Chung YR, Kang E, Kim EK, Kim SH, Kim YJ, Kim JH, Kim IA, Park SY. Microinvasive Carcinoma versus Ductal Carcinoma
In Situ: A Comparison of Clinicopathological Features and Clinical Outcomes.
J Breast Cancer 2018;
21:197-205. [PMID:
29963116 PMCID:
PMC6015981 DOI:
10.4048/jbc.2018.21.2.197]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2017] [Accepted: 04/25/2018] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE
Although microinvasive carcinoma is distinct from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the clinical significance of microinvasion in DCIS remains elusive. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes of microinvasive carcinoma compared with pure DCIS.
METHODS
We assessed 613 cases of DCIS and microinvasive carcinoma that were consecutively resected from 2003 to 2014 and analyzed clinicopathological variables, expression of standard biomarkers such as the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), p53, and Ki-67, and tumor recurrence.
RESULTS
Among the 613 cases, 136 (22.2%) were classified as microinvasive carcinoma. Microinvasive carcinoma was significantly associated with DCIS with a large extent, high nuclear grade, necrosis, and comedotype architectural pattern. ER and PR expressions were dominantly observed in pure DCIS, whereas positive HER2 status, p53 overexpression, and high Ki-67 proliferation indices were more frequently observed in microinvasive carcinoma. Lymph node metastasis was found in only four cases of microinvasive carcinoma with multifocal microinvasion. In the multivariate analysis, DCIS with a large extent, comedo-type architectural pattern, and negative ER status were found to be independent predictors of microinvasion. During follow-up, 12 patients had ipsilateral breast recurrence, and no differences in recurrence rates were observed between patients with DCIS and those with microinvasive carcinoma. The triple-negative subtype was the only factor that was associated with tumor recurrence.
CONCLUSION
Microinvasive carcinomas are distinct from DCIS in terms of clinicopathological features and biomarker expressions but are similar to DCIS in terms of clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that microinvasive carcinoma can be treated and followed up as pure DCIS.
Collapse