Comparison of Local Recurrence Risk Estimates After Breast-Conserving Surgery for DCIS: DCIS Nomogram Versus Refined Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score

Update on Management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) represents 18% to 25% of all diagnosed breast cancers, and is a noninvasive, nonobligate precursor lesion to invasive cancer. The diagnosis of DCIS represents a wide range of disease, including lesions with both low and high risk of progression to invasive cancer and recurrence. Over the past decade, research on the topic of DCIS has focused on the possibility of tailoring treatment for patients according to their risk for progression and recurrence, which is based on clinicopathologic, biomolecular and genetic factors. These efforts are ongoing, with recently completed and continuing clinical trials spanning the continuum of cancer care. We conducted a review to identify recent advances on the topic of diagnosis, risk stratification and management of DCIS. While novel imaging techniques have increased the rate of DCIS diagnosis, questions persist regarding the optimal management of lesions that would not be identified with conventional methods. Additionally, among trials investigating the potential for omission of surgery and use of active surveillance, 2 trials have completed accrual and 2 clinical trials are continuing to enroll patients. Identification of novel genetic patterns is expanding our potential for risk stratification and aiding our ability to de-escalate radiation and systemic therapies for DCIS. These advances provide hope for tailoring of DCIS treatment in the near future.

Tools to Guide Radiation Oncologists in the Management of DCIS

Similar to invasive breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ is also going through a phase of changes not only from a technical but also a conceptual standpoint. From prescribing radiotherapy to everyone to personalized approaches, including radiotherapy omission, there is still a lack of a comprehensive framework to guide radiation oncologists in decision making. Many pieces of the puzzle are finding their place as high-quality data mature and are disseminated, but very often, the interpretation of risk factors and the perception of risk remain very highly subjective. Sharing the therapeutic choice with patients requires effective communication for an understanding of risks and benefits, facilitating an informed decision that does not increase anxiety and concerns about prognosis. The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize the current state of knowledge to highlight the tools available to radiation oncologists for managing DCIS, with an outlook on future developments.

Molecular Signatures in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is debated as benefits are inconstant. Molecular signatures for DCIS have been developed to stratify the risk of local recurrence (LR) and therefore guide the decision of RT.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, in women with DCIS treated by BCS, the impact of adjuvant RT on LR according to the molecular signature risk stratification.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of five articles including women with DCIS treated by BCS and with a molecular assay performed to stratify the risk, comparing the effect of BCS and RT versus BCS alone on LR including ipsilateral invasive (InvBE) and total breast events (TotBE).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 3478 women and evaluated two molecular signatures: Oncotype Dx DCIS (prognostic of LR), and DCISionRT (prognostic of LR and predictive of RT benefit). For DCISionRT, in the high-risk group, the pooled hazard ratio of BCS + RT versus BCS was 0.39 (95%CI 0.20-0.77) for InvBE and 0.34 (95%CI 0.22-0.52) for TotBE. In the low-risk group, the pooled hazard ratio of BCS + RT versus BCS was significant for TotBE at 0.62 (95%CI 0.39-0.99); however, it was not significant for InvBE (HR = 0.58 (95%CI 0.25-1.32)), Discussion: Molecular signatures are able to discriminate high- and low-risk women, high-risk ones having a significant benefit of RT in the reduction of invasive and in situ local recurrences, while in low-risk ones RT did not have a benefit for preventing invasive breast recurrence. The risk prediction of molecular signatures is independent of other risk stratification tools developed in DCIS, and have a tendency toward RT de-escalation. Further studies are needed to assess the impact on mortality.

Identifying recurrences and metastasis after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is a non-invasive tumour that has the potential to progress to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Thus, it represents a treatment dilemma: alone it does not present a risk to life, however, left untreated it may progress to a life-threatening condition. Current clinico-pathological features cannot accurately predict which patients with DCIS have invasive potential, and therefore clinicians are unable to quantify the risk of progression for an individual patient. This leads to many women being over-treated, while others may not receive sufficient treatment to prevent invasive recurrence. A better understanding of the molecular features of DCIS, both tumour-intrinsic and the microenvironment, could offer the ability to better predict which women need aggressive treatment, and which can avoid therapies carrying significant side-effects and such as radiotherapy. In this review, we summarise the current knowledge of DCIS, and consider future research directions.

Prediction Models and Decision Aids for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Systematic Literature Review

Simple Summary

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a potential precursor to invasive breast cancer (IBC). Although in many women DCIS will never become breast cancer, almost all women diagnosed with DCIS undergo surgery with/without radiotherapy. Several studies are ongoing to de-escalate treatment for DCIS. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to aid women with DCIS in selecting the best treatment option for their specific goals. The aim of this study was to identify these decision support tools and evaluate their quality and clinical utility. Thirty-three studies were reviewed, in which four decision aids and six prediction models were described. While some of these models might be promising, most lacked important qualities such as tools to help women discuss their options or good quality validation studies. Therefore, the need for good quality, well validated decision support tools remains unmet.

Abstract

Even though Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) can potentially be an invasive breast cancer (IBC) precursor, most DCIS lesions never will progress to IBC if left untreated. Because we cannot predict yet which DCIS lesions will and which will not progress, almost all women with DCIS are treated by breast-conserving surgery +/− radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. As a consequence, many women with non-progressive DCIS carry the burden of intensive treatment without any benefit. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to optimize DCIS management, aiming to find the balance between over- and undertreatment. In this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and added value of such tools. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline(ovid), Embase(ovid), Scopus and TRIP. Following the PRISMA guidelines, publications were selected. The CHARMS (prediction models) or IPDAS (decision aids) checklist were used to evaluate the tools’ methodological quality. Thirty-three publications describing four decision aids and six prediction models were included. The decision aids met at least 50% of the IPDAS criteria. However, most lacked tools to facilitate discussion of the information with healthcare providers. Five prediction models quantify the risk of an ipsilateral breast event after a primary DCIS, one estimates the risk of contralateral breast cancer, and none included active surveillance. Good quality and external validations were lacking for all prediction models. There remains an unmet clinical need for well-validated, good-quality DCIS risk prediction models and decision aids in which active surveillance is included as a management option for low-risk DCIS.

The Clinical Utility of DCISionRT® on Radiation Therapy Decision Making in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND

The role of radiation therapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Trials have not identified a low-risk cohort, based on clinicopathologic features, who do not benefit from RT. A biosignature (DCISionRT®) that evaluates recurrence risk has been developed and validated. We evaluated the impact of DCISionRT on clinicians' recommendations for adjuvant RT.

METHODS

The PREDICT study is a prospective, multi-institutional, observational registry in which patients underwent DCISionRT testing. The primary endpoint was to identify the percentage of patients where testing led to a change in RT recommendations.

RESULTS

Overall, 539 women were included in this study. Pre DCISionRT testing, RT was recommended to 69% of patients; however, post-testing, a change in the RT recommendation was made for 42% of patients compared with the pre-testing recommendation; the percentage of women who were recommended RT decreased by 20%. For women initially recommended not to receive an RT pre-test, 35% had their recommendation changed to add RT following testing, while post-test, 46% of patients had their recommendation changed to omit RT after an initial recommendation for RT. When considered in conjunction with other clinicopathologic factors, the elevated DCISionRT score risk group (DS > 3) had the strongest association with an RT recommendation (odds ratio 43.4) compared with age, grade, size, margin status, and other factors.

CONCLUSIONS

DCISionRT provided information that significantly changed the recommendations to add or omit RT. Compared with traditional clinicopathologic features used to determine recommendations for or against RT, the factor most strongly associated with RT recommendations was the DCISionRT result, with other factors of importance being patient preference, tumor size, and grade.

Patterns of invasive recurrence among patients originally treated for ductal carcinoma in situ by breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy

Purpose

Local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is more common than after mastectomy, but it is unclear if patterns of invasive recurrence vary by initial surgical therapy. Among patients with invasive recurrence after treatment for DCIS, we compared patterns of first recurrence between those originally treated with BCS vs. mastectomy.

Methods

From 2000 to 2016, women with an invasive recurrence occurring ≥ 6 months after initial treatment for DCIS were retrospectively identified. Clinicopathologic features and adjuvant treatment of the initial DCIS, as well as characteristics of first invasive recurrences, were compared between patients who had undergone BCS vs. mastectomy.

Results

452 patients with an invasive recurrence after surgery for DCIS were identified: 367 patients (81%) had initially undergone BCS and 85 patients (19%) mastectomy. Patients originally treated with mastectomy were younger and were more likely to have had high grade, necrosis, and multifocal or multicentric DCIS (p < 0.001) compared with the BCS group. A higher proportion of invasive recurrences were local after BCS (93%; 343/367), whereas 88% (75/85) of recurrences after mastectomy were regional or distant (p < 0.001). The median time to first invasive recurrence was not different between surgical groups (BCS: 6.4 years vs. mastectomy: 5.5 years; p = 0.12).

Conclusions

Among women who experienced a first invasive recurrence after treatment for DCIS, those who had originally undergone mastectomy more commonly presented with advanced disease compared to those treated with BCS, likely related to the absence of the breast and the higher risk profile of their initial DCIS.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-021-06129-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Long-term Survival Comparison of Repeated Breast-conserving Surgery Versus Mastectomy for Patients with DCIS with Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence: A Real-world Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

Although patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) harbor excellent overall survival (OS) after breast-conserving therapy, the evidence regarding to surgical management for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) is scarce. This study aimed to assess the prognosis of repeated breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy for IBTR in DCIS survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Herein, 5344 DCIS cases with IBTR were identified during 702,748 person-years of follow-up, 3532 (66.09%) received mastectomy, and 1812 (33.91%) received repeated BCS. Cox regression and competing risk regression were employed to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), which was respectively calculated within spontaneous and matched cohorts.

RESULTS

After adjustment for confounders, no statistically significant survival difference was observed between the repeated BCS and mastectomy for patients with DCIS with IBTR. The stratified analyses further revealed that patients with DCIS with IBTR receiving repeated BCS combined with radiation therapy were associated with both superior OS (HR, 0.79; CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .04) and BCSS (HR, 0.54; CI, 0.33-0.90; P = .02) compared with counterparts undergoing mastectomy. Furthermore, patients with DCIS who were age older than 60 years at IBTR diagnosis benefit from repeated BCS with radiotherapy (HR, 0.44; CI, 0.24-0.84; P = .01) than mastectomy.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that repeated BCS with radiation therapy deserves consideration when DCIS survivors suffered IBTR. The choice of surgical management should be tailored based on patients' age at IBTR diagnosis and size of recurrent disease.

[Overall survival and survival without local recurrence in case of radiotherapy of the tumor bed of ductal carcinomas in situ of the breast: Review of the literature]

INTRODUCTION

Carcinomas in situ represent more than 15 to 20% of breast cancers. Radiotherapy of whole breast is part of the therapeutic standard and follows surgery. However, the indication of tumor bed irradiation is still controversial and heterogeneous according to international practice even though it is a very frequent clinical situation. The aim of this study is to define the indications of tumor bed irradiation in the context of ductal carcinomas in situ and to discuss accelerated partial irradiation of the breast.

METHOD

The selected papers were published between 2015 and 2020 and included as MeSH terms "ductal carcinoma in situ" and "boost" for the analysis of tumor bed irradiation, and "ductal carcinoma in situ" and "accelerated partial breast irradiation" for the analysis of accelerated partial irradiation.

RESULTS

Boost was more often performed when risk factors for local recurrence were present, such as age less than 40 or 50 years old, clinical mode of detection, tumor size greater than 15 to 20mm, high nuclear grade, presence of necrosis, positive or insufficient surgical margins, associated atypical hyperplastic lesions, and lobular carcinoma in situ. Accelerated partial irradiation is an option for favorable or intermediate prognosis CCIS, further studies involving more patients are required.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy of the mammary gland in the context of DCIS has shown its effectiveness in terms of local and locoregional control of the disease, thus reducing in situ and infiltrating recurrences. However, the indication of operating bed irradiation is still debated, and the practice is very heterogeneous depending on the country. Another possible alternative for patients with a favorable prognosis and a small tumor bed volume would be IPA.

Patterns of treatment and outcome of ductal carcinoma in situ in the Netherlands

Purpose

To spare DCIS patients from overtreatment, treatment de-escalated over the years. This study evaluates the influence of these developments on the patterns of care in the treatment of DCIS with particular interest in the use of breast conserving surgery (BCS), radiotherapy following BCS and the use and type of axillary staging.

Methods

In this large population-based cohort study all women, aged 50–74 years diagnosed with DCIS from January 1989 until January 2019, were analyzed per two-year cohort.

Results

A total of 30,417 women were diagnosed with DCIS. The proportion of patients undergoing BCS increased from 47.7% in 1995–1996 to 72.7% in 2017–2018 (p < 0.001). Adjuvant radiotherapy following BCS increased from 28.9% (1995–1996) to 89.6% (2011–2012) and subsequently decreased to 74.9% (2017–2018; p < 0.001). Since its introduction, the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) increased to 63.1% in 2013–2014 and subsequently decreased to 52.8% in 2017–2018 (p < 0.001). Axillary surgery is already omitted in 55.8% of the patients undergoing BCS nowadays. The five-year invasive relapse-free survival (iRFS) for BCS with adjuvant radiotherapy in the period 1989–2010, was 98.7% [CI 98.4% – 99.0%], compared to 95.0% [CI 94.1% –95.8%] for BCS only (p < 0.001). In 2011–2018, this was 99.3% [CI 99.1% – 99.5%] and 98.8% [CI 98.2% – 99.4%] respectively (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

This study shows a shift toward less extensive treatment. DCIS is increasingly treated with BCS and less often followed by additional radiotherapy. The absence of radiotherapy still results in excellent iRFS. Axillary surgery is increasingly omitted in DCIS patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biological Signature DCISionRT Use for DCIS Treatment

BACKGROUND

Currently it remains difficult to identify patients most likely to benefit from radiotherapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), thus leading to wide variation in practice patterns. The genomic risk assessment tool DCISionRT (PreludeDX) has been validated to prognosticate recurrence risk and predict RT benefit. We aimed to study the cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DCIS treatments based on DCISionRT testing to traditional clinicopathologic risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A Markov state transition model was constructed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing breast-conserving surgery with or without RT using DCISionRT testing vs. traditional clinicopathologic risk factors. Clinical parameters were obtained from clinical trial data and cross-validation studies. Cost data were based on 2019 Medicare reimbursement. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained comparing DCIS treatments using DCISionRT testing to traditional clinicopathologic risk factors and evaluated with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per QALY gained. To account for uncertainty, 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Base case analysis showed that DCIS management using DCISionRT testing was a cost-effective strategy, resulting in an ICER of $74,331 per QALY gained compared to clinicopathology-based treatment. Model results were sensitive to a variation of the proportion of genomic-high, low-risk patients receiving RT in DCISionRT testing strategy, and changes in DCISionRT testing cost.

CONCLUSION

DCISionRT testing could potentially be a cost-effective strategy compared to traditional decision making for DCIS treatments, optimizing RT benefit based on an accurate recurrence risk assessment.

Breast Specimen Measurement Methodology and Its Potential Major Impact on Tumor Size

OBJECTIVE

Pathologic tumor size assessment highly depends on the gross specimen size once microscopic cancer size exceeds its macroscopic size, in particular if the dimension along the plane of sectioning is the greatest. We hypothesize that the method by which the specimen size is estimated can yield significantly different tumor size measurements and thus affect breast cancer staging and treatment.

METHODS

The size in the plane of sectioning of 50 lumpectomies over 4 cm was examined by 5 methods: measured grossly in the fresh state and postfixation, and calculated from the gross measurements by 3 different methods. For 15 mastectomies, we measured and calculated the span of the middle 4 and 6 slices using 3 methods.

RESULTS

For all 50 lumpectomies, fresh measurement yielded the largest size. The difference in size of lumpectomies was greater with increasing specimen size (P < .001). Using the method of adding 0.4 cm per each submitted sequential section yielded the smallest size in most cases. In mastectomies the span of the middle 4 and 6 slices was significantly larger if calculated from the average slice thickness based on the specimen size.

CONCLUSION

The method of specimen size measurement has implications in estimation of tumor size and patient management. It is essential that pathologists be aware of the technique used and its limitations. For individual slice thickness, we highly recommend using the measurements obtained at the time of grossing rather than calculating the average slice thickness from the specimen size.

Validation of a Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Biomarker Profile for Risk of Recurrence after Breast-Conserving Surgery with and without Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

A major challenge in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treatment is selection of the most appropriate therapeutic approach for individual patients. We conducted an external prospective-retrospective clinical validation of a DCIS biologic risk signature, DCISionRT, in a population-based observational cohort of women diagnosed with DCIS and treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Participants were 455 health plan members of Kaiser Permanente Northwest diagnosed with DCIS and treated with BCS with or without radiotherapy from 1990 to 2007. The biologic signature combined seven protein tumor markers assessed in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue with four clinicopathologic factors to provide a DCISionRT test result, termed decision score (DS). Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to measure the association of the DS, continuous (linear) or categorical (DS ≤ 3 vs. DS > 3), and subsequent total ipsilateral breast events and invasive ipsilateral breast events at least 6 months after initial surgery.

RESULTS

In Cox regression, the continuous and categorical DS variables were positively associated with total and invasive breast event risk after adjustment for radiotherapy. In a subset analysis by treatment group, categorical Kaplan-Meier analyses showed at least 2-fold differences in 10-year risk of total breast events between the elevated-risk and low-risk DS categories.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first external validation study of the DCISionRT test, the DS was prognostic for the risk of later breast events for women diagnosed with DCIS, following BCS.

Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Considerations for Tailoring Therapy in the Contemporary Era

Purpose of Review

Standard options for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) include breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone; BCS with radiotherapy or endocrine therapy, or both; and mastectomy. Survival is excellent with all options, but rates of local recurrence (LR) vary, as do quality-of-life measures. Here we discuss treatment outcomes, risk factors for LR, and tools for risk estimation.

Recent Findings

After BCS, radiotherapy reduces the risk of LR by half, and endocrine therapy reduces the risk by a third. Young age, inadequate margins, and greater volume of disease are associated with higher risk of LR after BCS, while young age, high grade, and microinvasion are associated with higher risk of locoregional recurrence after mastectomy. Clinical tools, including the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) DCIS nomogram, provide LR risk estimates after BCS that appear more accurate than current genomic assays. The safety of active surveillance for seemingly low-risk patients remains uncertain.

Summary

Estimation of LR risk, utilizing a multitude of clinicopathologic and treatment factors, can help a woman balance that risk with her values and priorities, and allow her to choose the optimal treatment option for her.