Challenges in ductal carcinoma in situ risk communication and decision-making: report from an American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute workshop

DCIS knowledge of women choosing between active surveillance and surgery for low-risk DCIS

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but often never will. As we cannot predict accurately which DCIS-lesions will or will not progress to IBC, almost all women with DCIS undergo breast-conserving surgery supplemented with radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. In some countries, endocrine treatment is prescribed as well. This implies many women with non-progressive DCIS undergo overtreatment. To reduce this, the LORD patient preference trial (LORD-PPT) tests whether mammographic active surveillance (AS) is safe by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between treatment and AS. For this, sufficient knowledge about DCIS is crucial. Therefore, we assessed women's DCIS knowledge in association with socio-demographic and clinical characteristics.

METHODS

LORD-PPT participants (N = 376) completed a questionnaire assessing socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, risk perception, treatment choice and DCIS knowledge after being informed about their diagnosis and treatment options.

RESULTS

66 % of participants had poor knowledge (i.e., answered ≤3 out of 7 knowledge items correctly). Most incorrect answers involved overestimating the safety of AS and misunderstanding of DCIS prognostic risks. Overall, women with higher DCIS knowledge score perceived their risk of developing IBC as being somewhat higher than women with poorer knowledge (p = 0.049). Women with better DCIS knowledge more often chose surgery whilst most women with poorer knowledge chose active surveillance (p = 0.049).

DISCUSSION

Our findings show that there is room for improvement of information provision to patients. Decision support tools for patients and clinicians could help to stimulate effective shared decision-making about DCIS management.

"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ

BACKGROUND

Of the nearly 50,000 women in the United States who undergo treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) annually, many may not benefit from treatment. To better understand the impact of a DCIS diagnosis, patients self-identified as having had DCIS were engaged regarding their experience.

METHODS

In July 2014, a web-based survey was administered through the Susan Love Army of Women breast cancer listserv. The survey included open-ended questions designed to assess patients' perspectives about DCIS diagnosis and treatment. Deductive and inductive codes were applied to the responses; common themes were summarized.

RESULTS

Among the 1832 women included in the analytic sample, the median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Four primary themes were identified: 1) uncertainty surrounding a DCIS diagnosis, 2) uncertainty about DCIS treatment, 3) concern about treatment side effects, and 4) concern about recurrence and/or developing invasive breast cancer. When diagnosed, participants were often uncertain about whether they had cancer or not and whether they should be considered a "survivor." Uncertainty about treatment manifested as questioning the appropriateness of the amount of treatment received. Participants expressed concern about the "cancer spreading" or becoming invasive and that they were not necessarily "doing enough" to prevent recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, national sample, participants with a history of DCIS reported confusion and concern about the diagnosis and treatment, which caused worry and significant uncertainty. Developing strategies to improve patient and provider communications regarding the nature of DCIS and acknowledging gaps in the current knowledge of management options should be a priority.

Comparison of the ductal carcinoma in situ between White Americans and Chinese Americans

Currently, the wide-spread use of screening mammography has led to dramatic increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). However, DCIS of Chinese Americans, the largest Asian subgroup in American, has rarely been comprehensively studied over the past decade. This work compared the DCIS characteristics and prognosis of Chinese American patients with White Americans in the USA to determine the characteristics and prognosis of DCIS patients of Chinese Americans.The data were obtained using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. The diagnosis and treatment variables between the two groups were compared by means of Chi-square tests. Survival was determined with the use of the Kaplan-Meier method and the multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model.From 1975 to 2016, 81,745 White Americans and 2069 Chinese Americans were diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. Compared with the white patients, the Chinese Americans were younger (P < .001) with smaller tumors (P < .001) and higher family income (P < .001). DCIS patients of Chinese American group accounted for a higher percentage of all breast cancers than the whites (P < .001). In the multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, Chinese American was an independent favorable prognostic factor in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.684; 95% CI, 0.593-0.789; P < .001) compared with the white group.In conclusion, DCIS characteristics of the Chinese group, which exhibited a higher proportion of younger age, a higher DCIS ratio, and a better prognosis, were distinct from those of the White Americans.

Recommendations to improve patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ: Qualitative focus groups with women

Background

Patient‐centred care (PCC) improves health‐care experiences and outcomes. Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and clinicians have reported communication difficulties. Little prior research has studied how to improve communication and PCC for DCIS.

Objective

This study explored how to achieve PCC for DCIS.

Design

Canadian women treated for DCIS from five provinces participated in semi‐structured focus groups based on a 6‐domain cancer‐specific PCC framework to discuss communication about DCIS. Data were analysed using constant comparative technique.

Setting and Participants

Thirty‐five women aged 30 to 86 participated in five focus groups at five hospitals.

Results

Women said their clinicians used multiple approaches for fostering a healing relationship; however, most described an absence of desired information or behaviour to exchange information, respond to emotions, manage uncertainty, make decisions and enable self‐management. Most women were confused by terminology, offered little information about the risks of progression/recurrence, uninformed about treatment benefits and risks, frustrated with lack of engagement in decision making, given little information about follow‐up plans or self‐care advice, and received no acknowledgement or offer of emotional support.

Discussion and Conclusions

By comparing the accounts of women with DCIS to a PCC framework, we identified limitations and inconsistencies in women's lived experience of communication about DCIS, and approaches by which clinicians can more consistently achieve PCC for DCIS. Future research should develop and evaluate informational tools to support PCC for DCIS.

Quality of DCIS information on the internet: a content analysis

PURPOSE

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) experience lingering confusion and anxiety, and may use the Internet for supplemental information. This study assessed the content and quality of DCIS information on the Internet.

METHODS

We searched Google for English-language, publicly available DCIS information tools published from 2010 to current by non-profit organizations. We summarized tool characteristics, DCIS labels, and information important to women with DCIS corresponding to domains of a patient-centred care (PCC) framework. Tool quality was appraised with the DISCERN instrument.

RESULTS

Of 39 tools included, most were plain language summaries published since 2016. Tools employed a median of 2.0 labels (range 1.0 to 5.0) for DCIS, most frequently non-invasive breast cancer (29, 74.4%), abnormal cells (14, 35.9%), pre-cancer (14, 35.9%), and early form of breast cancer (13, 33.3%). Tools addressed a median of 4.0 (range 2.0 to 5.0) PCC domains. Few tools contained content in the domains of fostering the relationship (30.8%), addressing emotions (41.0%), or follow-up (41.0%); 74.4% noted the risk of progression or recurrence but provided vague details. Tools were assessed as high (25.6%), moderate (48.7%), and low (25.6%) quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Few DCIS information tools available to women on the Internet meet quality criteria for consumer health information or address concerns of importance to women with DCIS. By identifying a range of poorly defined terms used to label DCIS, and specific content domains that were lacking, this study identified how existing tools could be improved, and identified higher-quality tools that clinicians can use when discussing DCIS with patients.

Folic acid-modified ginsenoside Rg5-loaded bovine serum albumin nanoparticles for targeted cancer therapy in vitro and in vivo

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Ginsenoside Rg5 (Rg5), a triterpene saponin, extracted from the natural herbal plant ginseng, is one of the most potent anticancer drugs against various carcinoma cells. However, the therapeutic potential of Rg5 is limited by its low solubility in water, poor bioavailability, and nontargeted delivery. Therefore, we prepared folic acid (FA)-modified bovine serum albumin (BSA) nanoparticles (FA-Rg5-BSA NPs) to improve the therapeutic efficacy and tumor targetability of Rg5.

METHODS

Various aspects of the FA-Rg5-BSA NPs were characterized, including size, polydispersity, zeta potential, morphology, entrapment efficiency (EE), drug loading (DL), in vitro drug release, thermal stability, in vitro cytotoxicity, cell apoptosis, cellular uptake, in vivo antitumor effects and in vivo biodistribution imaging.

RESULTS

The FA-Rg5-BSA NPs showed a particle size of 201.4 nm with a polydispersity index of 0.081, uniform spherical shape, and drug loading of 12.64±4.02%. The aqueous solution of FA-Rg5-BSA NPs had favorable stability for 8 weeks at 4°C. The FA-Rg5-BSA NPs dissolved under acidic conditions. Moreover, the Rg5-BSA NPs and FA-Rg5-BSA NPs had advanced anticancer activity compared with Rg5 in MCF-7 cells, while poor cytotoxicity was observed in L929 cells. The FA-Rg5-BSA NPs facilitated cellular uptake and induced apoptosis in MCF-7 cells. In addition, in an MCF-7 xenograft mouse model, the in vivo antitumor evaluation revealed that FA-Rg5-BSA NPs were more effective in inhibiting tumor growth than Rg5 and Rg5-BSA NPs. The in vivo real-time bioimaging study showed that the FA-Rg5-BSA NPs exhibited superior tumor accumulation ability.

CONCLUSION

The results suggested that FA-Rg5-BSA NPs could serve as a promising system to improve the antitumor effect of Rg5.

Ductal carcinoma in situ: to treat or not to treat, that is the question

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) now represents 20-25% of all 'breast cancers' consequent upon detection by population-based breast cancer screening programmes. Currently, all DCIS lesions are treated, and treatment comprises either mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery supplemented with radiotherapy. However, most DCIS lesions remain indolent. Difficulty in discerning harmless lesions from potentially invasive ones can lead to overtreatment of this condition in many patients. To counter overtreatment and to transform clinical practice, a global, comprehensive and multidisciplinary collaboration is required. Here we review the incidence of DCIS, the perception of risk for developing invasive breast cancer, the current treatment options and the known molecular aspects of progression. Further research is needed to gain new insights for improved diagnosis and management of DCIS, and this is integrated in the PRECISION (PREvent ductal Carcinoma In Situ Invasive Overtreatment Now) initiative. This international effort will seek to determine which DCISs require treatment and prevent the consequences of overtreatment on the lives of many women affected by DCIS.

National consensus recommendations on patient-centered care for ductal carcinoma in situ

PURPOSE

The purpose of this research was to generate recommendations on strategies to achieve patient-centered care (PCC) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODS

Thirty clinicians (surgeons, medical/radiation oncologists, radiologists, nurses, navigators) who manage DCIS and 32 DCIS survivors aged 18 or older were nominated. Forty-six recommendations to support PCC for DCIS were derived from primary research, and rated in a two-round Delphi process from March to June 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 29 clinicians and 27 women completed Round One, and 28 clinicians and 22 women completed Round Two. The 29 recommendations retained by both women and clinicians reflected the PCC domains of fostering patient-physician relationship (5), exchanging information (5), responding to emotions (1), managing uncertainty (4), making decisions (9), and enabling patient self-management (5). An additional 13 recommendations were retained by women only: fostering patient-physician relationship (1), exchanging information (3), responding to emotions (2), making decisions (3), and enabling patient self-management (4). Some recommendations refer to processes (i.e., ask questions about lifestyle or views about risks/outcomes to understand patient preferences); others to tools (i.e., communication aid). Panelists recommended a separate consensus process to refine the language that clinicians use when describing DCIS.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to generate guidance on how to achieve PCC for DCIS. Organizations that deliver or oversee health care can use these recommendations on PCC for DCIS to plan, evaluate, or improve services. Ongoing research is needed to develop communication tools, and establish labels and language for DCIS that optimize communication.

Interventions are needed to support patient-provider decision-making for DCIS: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Prognostic and treatment uncertainty make ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) complex to manage. The purpose of this study was to describe research that evaluated DCIS communication experiences, needs and interventions among DCIS patients or physicians.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. English language studies that evaluated patient or physician DCIS needs, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies published from 1997 to 2016 were eligible for review, with a peak of 8 articles in year 2010. Women with DCIS lacked knowledge about the condition and its prognosis, although care partners were more informed, desired more information and experienced decisional conflict. Many chose mastectomy or prophylactic mastectomy, often based on physician's recommendation. Following treatment, women had anxiety and depression, often at levels similar to those with invasive breast cancer. Disparities were identified by education level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and literacy. Physicians said that they had difficulty explaining DCIS and many referred to DCIS as cancer. Despite the challenges reported by patients and physicians, only two studies developed interventions designed to improve patient-physician discussion and decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

As most women with DCIS undergo extensive treatment, and many experience treatment-related complications, the paucity of research on PE to improve and support informed decision-making for DCIS is profound. Research is needed to improve patient and provider discussions and decision-making for DCIS management.

A Patient-centered Approach to Evaluate the Information Needs of Women With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the information needs of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients.

METHODS

Four focus groups involving 24 previously treated DCIS patients were conducted to develop a comprehensive list of questions they felt were important to have answered at the time of diagnosis. Using a survey, a separate group of patients treated for DCIS then rated the importance of having each of these questions addressed before treatment decision making. Response options were "essential," "desired," "not important," "no opinion," and "avoid." For each essential/desired question, respondents specified how addressing it would help them: "understand," "decide," "plan," "not sure," or "other."

RESULTS

Focus group participants generated 117 questions used in the survey. Fifty-seven patients completed the survey (55% response rate). Respondents rated a median of 66 questions as essential. The most commonly cited reason for rating a question essential was to "understand," followed by to "decide." The top questions women deemed essential to help them understand were disease specific, whereas the top questions deemed essential to help women decide were predominantly treatment specific, pertaining to available options, recurrence and survival outcomes, and timelines to decide and start treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

DCIS patients want a large number of questions answered, mostly for understanding, and also for deciding and planning. A core set of questions that most patients consider essential for decision making has been formulated and may be used in the clinical setting and in research to develop educational resources and decision-making tools specific to DCIS.

Keeping Abreast of Developments in the Cancer Wars: A View From the Front

Cancer somehow lends itself to military analogies, perhaps because of its status as a threat to life itself. We've declared war on cancer over several decades, viewing cancer as a cell going rogue, dividing uncontrollably, and ultimately breaking through local boundaries to spread. Less well known, but critically relevant to the health care impact of questioning authority, is the war within the breast cancer management community, among those studying molecular and cellular targets in breast cancer biology and those managing the human targets that represent cancer's toll. This article outlines current concepts and controversies about breast cancer, presenting a bio/sociological basis and a mental toolkit for thinking about and coping with this conflict.

Risk communication and decision-making in the prevention of invasive breast cancer

Risk communication surrounding the prevention of invasive breast cancer entails not only understanding of the disease, risks and opportunities for intervention. But it also requires understanding and implementation of optimal strategies for communication with patients who are making these decisions. In this article, available evidence for the issues surrounding risk communication and decision making in the prevention of invasive breast cancer are reviewed and strategies for improvement are discussed.

Mammography, Martin Yaffe, and me: response and appreciation

I thank Dr. Martin Yaffe for his many constructive comments in his thoughtful review of my previous invited editorial, providing valuable insights into the complex and controversial issues of the current mammography debate. [...]

Cancer statistics: Breast cancer in situ

An estimated 60,290 new cases of breast carcinoma in situ are expected to be diagnosed in 2015, and approximately 1 in 33 women is likely to receive an in situ breast cancer diagnosis in her lifetime. Although in situ breast cancers are relatively common, their clinical significance and optimal treatment are topics of uncertainty and concern for both patients and clinicians. In this article, the American Cancer Society provides information about occurrence and treatment patterns for the 2 major subtypes of in situ breast cancer in the United States-ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ-using data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries and the 13 oldest Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. The authors also present an overview of in situ breast cancer detection, treatment, risk factors, and prevention and discuss research needs and initiatives.

How different terminology for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) impacts women's concern and management preferences: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

There are increasing rates of mastectomy and bi-lateral mastectomy in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). To help women avoid decisions that lead to unnecessary aggressive treatments, there have been recent calls to remove the cancer terminology from descriptions of DCIS. We investigated how different proposed terminologies for DCIS affect women's perceived concern and management preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a community sample of 26 Australian women varying by education and cancer screening experience. Women responded to a hypothetical scenario using terminology with and without the cancer term to describe DCIS.

RESULTS

Among a sample of women with no experience of a DCIS diagnosis, a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS elicited high concern regardless of the terminology used to describe it. Women generally exhibited stronger negative reactions when a cancer term was used to describe DCIS compared to a non-cancer term, and most preferred the diagnosis be given as a description of abnormal cells. Overall women expressed interest in watchful waiting for DCIS but displayed preferences for very frequent monitoring with this management approach.

CONCLUSION

Communicating a diagnosis of DCIS using terminology that does not include the cancer term was preferred by many women and may enable discussions about more conservative management options. However, women's preference for frequent monitoring during watchful waiting suggests women need more education and reassurance about this management approach.

Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to quantify the benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years, focusing on the amount of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODS

Three well-established microsimulation models were used to simulate a cohort of American women born in 1960. All women received biennial screening starting at age 50 years with cessation ages varying from 74 up to 96 years. We estimated the number of life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life-years, breast cancer deaths averted, false-positives, and overdiagnosed women per 1000 screens.

RESULTS

The models predicted that there were 7.8 to 11.4 LYG per 1000 screens at age 74 years (range across models), decreasing to 4.8 to 7.8 LYG per 1000 screens at age 80 years, and 1.4 to 2.4 LYG per 1000 screens at age 90 years. When adjusted for quality-of-life decrements, the LYG decreased by 5% to 13% at age 74 years and 11% to 22% at age 80 years. At age 90 to 92 years, all LYG were counterbalanced by a loss in quality-of-life, mainly because of the increasing number of overdiagnosed breast cancers per 1000 screens: 1.2 to 5.0 at age 74 years, 1.8 to 6.0 at age 80 years, and 3.7 to 7.5 at age 90 years. The age at which harms began to outweigh benefits shifted to a younger age when larger or longer utility losses because of a breast cancer diagnosis were assumed.

CONCLUSION

The balance between screening benefits and harms becomes less favorable after age 74 years. At age 90 years, harms outweigh benefits, largely as a consequence of overdiagnosis. This age was the same across the three models, despite important model differences in assumptions on DCIS.

Estimates of young breast cancer survivors at risk for infertility in the U.S

BACKGROUND

Standard treatments for breast cancer can impair fertility. It is unknown how many U.S. survivors are at risk for infertility. We estimated the population at risk for infertility secondary to treatment among reproductive-aged breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

We combined data from three sources: the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry data on incident breast cancers diagnosed in women aged 15-44 years between 2004 and 2006; treatment data from NPCR's 2004 Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care (PoC) study; and data on women's intentions to have children from the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG).

RESULTS

In the cancer registry data, an average of 20,308 women with breast cancer aged <45 years were diagnosed annually. Based on estimates from PoC data, almost all of these survivors (97%, 19,416 women) were hormone receptor positive or received chemotherapy and would be at risk for infertility. These women need information about the impact of treatments on fertility. Estimates based on NSFG data suggest approximately half of these survivors (9,569 women) might want children and could benefit from fertility counseling and fertility preservation.

CONCLUSION

Nearly all young breast cancer survivors in the U.S. are at risk for infertility. Physicians should discuss the potential impact of treatment on fertility. A smaller but sizeable number of at-risk survivors may be interested in having children. Given the magnitude of potential infertility and its quality-of-life implications, these survivors should have access to and potential coverage for fertility services.

A comparison of the risks of in-breast recurrence after a diagnosis of dcis or early invasive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether ductal carcinoma in situ (dcis) is a preinvasive marker of breast cancer or if it is part of a spectrum of small cancers with malignant potential. Comparing clinical outcomes in women with invasive and noninvasive breast lesions might help to resolve the issue.

METHODS

From a database of 2641 patients with breast cancer, we selected women who had been treated with breast-conserving surgery for a cancer that was 2.0 cm or less in size, node-negative, and nonpalpable. No subject received chemotherapy. Cancers were categorized as noninvasive (stage 0, n = 172) or invasive (stage 1, n = 401) based on a review of the pathology records. We compared the actuarial risks of in-breast recurrence after invasive and noninvasive breast lesions before and after adjusting for tamoxifen and radiotherapy.

RESULTS

The 18-year cumulative risk of in-breast recurrence was 35.2% for patients with dcis and 12.8% for patients with small invasive cancers (hazard ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.5 to 3.8; p < 0.0003). After adjustment for radiotherapy and tamoxifen treatment, the difference was small and nonsignificant (hazard ratio: 1.4; 95% confidence interval: 0.9 to 2.4; p = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

For women with small, nonpalpable, node-negative breast cancers, the likelihood of experiencing an in-breast recurrence was associated with radiotherapy and with tamoxifen, but not with the presence of cancer cells invading beyond the basement membrane.

Ductal carcinoma in situ: knowledge of associated risks and prognosis among Latina and non-Latina white women

While not itself life-threatening, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive disease if untreated, and confers an increased risk of future breast cancer. We investigated knowledge of DCIS among a cohort of English- and Spanish-speaking Latina and English-speaking non-Latina white women previously treated for DCIS. We examined knowledge of DCIS with four true/false statements about risk of invasive disease, breast cancer recurrence, and prognosis. For each knowledge statement, we modeled the odds of a correct answer by language-ethnicity (English-speaking Latinas, Spanish-speaking Latinas, and English-speaking whites) adjusting for demographics, health history, and treatment factors. Of 710 participants, 52 % were English-speaking whites, 21 % English-speaking Latinas, and 27 % Spanish-speaking Latinas. Less than half (41 %) of participants were aware that DCIS is not life-threatening and only 32 % knew that surgical treatment choice does not impact mortality; whereas two-thirds (67 %) understood that DCIS confers increased risk of future breast cancer, and almost all (92 %) knew that DCIS, if untreated, could become invasive. Only three Spanish-speakers used professional interpreters during discussions with their physicians. In adjusted analyses, compared to English-speaking whites, both English- and Spanish-speaking Latinas had significantly lower odds of knowing that DCIS was not life-threatening (OR, 95 % CI 0.6, 0.4-0.9 and 0.5, 0.3-0.9, respectively). In contrast, Spanish-speaking Latinas had a twofold higher odds of knowing that DCIS increases risk of future breast cancer (OR, 95 % CI 2.6, 1.6-4.4), but English-speaking Latinas were no different from English-speaking whites. Our data suggest that physicians are more successful at conveying the risks conferred by DCIS than the nuances of DCIS as a non-life-threatening diagnosis. This uneven communication is most marked for Spanish-speaking Latinas. In addition to the use of professional interpreters, efforts to create culturally and linguistically standardized information could improve knowledge and engagement in informed decision making for all DCIS patients.

Factors influencing the quality of local management of ductal carcinoma in situ: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend radiotherapy (rt) after breast-conserving surgery (bcs) for optimal control of ductal carcinoma in situ (dcis). The aim of the present study was to characterize the rates of rt consideration and administration, and to identify factors influencing those rates in a cohort of women diagnosed between 1998 and 2005 in Quebec.

METHODS

Quebec's medical service claims and discharge abstract database were used. Using consultation for rt as an indicator for rt consideration, odds ratios (ors) and 95% confidence intervals (cis) were estimated using a generalized estimating equations regression model.

RESULTS

Of 4139 women analyzed (mean age: 58 years), 3435 (83%) received a consultation for rt, and 3057 of them (89%) proceeded with treatment. The rate of rt consideration increased by 7.1% over the study period, with notable differences in the various age groups. Relative to women 50-69 years of age, the ors for being considered for rt were, respectively, 0.89 (95% ci: 0.71 to 1.12), 0.71 (95% ci: 0.55 to 0.92), and 0.20 (95% ci: 0.14 to 0.31) for women younger than 50, 70-79, and 80 years of age and older. Distance to a designated breast care centre lowered the probability of rt consideration, but the presence of comorbidities did not. A surgeon's volume of bcss increased the probability of being considered for rt by 7% for every 10 such procedures performed (or: 1.07; 95% ci: 1.04 to 1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration for rt has increased over time. However, older women (despite being in good health) and those living far from a designated breast care centre or having a low-case-volume surgeon were less likely to be considered for rt.