Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Pathology & Oncology Research
Published in: Pathology & Oncology Research 2/2020

Open Access 01-04-2020 | Breast Cancer | Review

Grading Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast – What’s Wrong with It?

Authors: Gábor Cserni, Anita Sejben

Published in: Pathology & Oncology Research | Issue 2/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast is a non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer, and at its lower risk end might not need treatment, a hypothesis tested in several currently running randomized clinical trials. This review describes the heterogeneity of grading ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). First it considers differences between low and high grade DCIS, and then it looks at several grading schemes and highlights how different these are, not only in the features considered for defining a given grade but also in their wording of a given variable seen in the grade in question. Rather than being fully comprehensive, the review aims to illustrate the inconsistencies. Reproducibility studies on grading mostly suggestive of moderate agreement on DCIS differentiation are also illustrated. The need for a well structured, more uniform and widely accepted language for grading DCIS is urged to avoid misunderstanding based misclassifications and improper treatment selection.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Wilkerson PM, Dedes KJ, Lopez-Garcia MA, Geyer FC, Reis-Filho JS (2011) The molecular evolution of breast cancer precursors and risk indicators. In: Kahán Z, Tot T (eds) Breast cancer, a heterogeneous disease entity. The very early stages. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, pp 89–117
2.
Elston CW, Ellis IO, Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I (1991) The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410PubMed
3.
Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, Bellocq JP, Bianchi S, Boecker W, Borisch B, Bussolati G, Connolly CE, Cserni G, Decker T, Dervan P, Drijkoningen M, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Eusebi V, Faverly D, Heikkila P, Holland R, Kerner H, Kulka J, Jacquemier J, Lacerda M, Martinez-Penuela J, De Miguel C, Nordgren H, Peterse JL, Rank F, Regitnig P, Reiner A, Sapino A, Sigal-Zafrani B, Tanous AM, Thorstenson S, Zozaya E, Wells CA, EC Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology (2006) Quality assurance guidelines for pathology. In: Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (eds) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Comission, Luxemburg, pp 219–311
4.
5.
Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, Connolly JL, de Baca ME, Fitzgibbons PL, Hayes DF, Kleer C, O'Malley FP, Page DL, Smith BL, Tan LK, Weaver DL, Winer E (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:15–25PubMed
6.
Schnitt SJ, Allred C, Britton P, Ellis IO, Lakhani SR, Morrow M, Palazzo J, Reynolds C, Rutgers E, Simpson J, van de Vijver MJ, Vincent-Salomon A (2012) Ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ (eds) WHO classification of tumours of the breast, 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, pp 90–94
7.
Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, Harris A, Fox S, Smeds J, Nordgren H, Farmer P, Praz V, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Larsimont D, Cardoso F, Peterse H, Nuyten D, Buyse M, Van de Vijver MJ, Bergh J, Piccart M, Delorenzi M (2006) Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:262–272PubMed
8.
Hannemann J, Velds A, Halfwerk JB, Kreike B, Peterse JL, van de Vijver MJ (2006) Classification of ductal carcinoma in situ by gene expression profiling. Breast Cancer Res 8:61
9.
Balleine RL, Webster LR, Davis S, Salisbury EL, Palazzo JP, Schwartz GF, Cornfield DB, Walker RL, Byth K, Clarke CL, Meltzer PS (2008) Molecular grading of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin Cancer Res 14:8244–8252PubMed
10.
Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Simpson JF, Page DL, Dupont WD (2015) Continued observation of the natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ reaffirms proclivity for local recurrence even after more than 30 years of follow-up. Mod Pathol 28:662–669PubMed
11.
Maxwell AJ, Clements K, Hilton B, Dodwell DJ, Evans A, Kearins O, Pinder SE, Thomas J, Wallis MG, Thompson AM (2018) Risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Surg Oncol 44:429–435PubMed
12.
Cserni G (2002) Tumour histological grade may progress between primary and recurrent invasive mammary carcinoma. J Clin Pathol 55:293–297PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Wang SY, Shamliyan T, Virnig BA, Kane R (2011) Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127:1–14PubMed
14.
Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Skinner VP, Dif N, Pijnappel RM, Bijker N, Rutgers EJ, Wesseling J (2015) Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - the LORD study. Eur J Cancer 51:1497–1510PubMed
15.
Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, Wallis M, Bartlett JM, Brookes C, Roberts T, Pirrie S, Gaunt C, Young J, Billingham L, Dodwell D, Hanby A, Pinder SE, Evans A, Reed M, Jenkins V, Matthews L, Wilcox M, Fairbrother P, Bowden S, Rea D (2015) Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer 51:2296–2303PubMed
16.
17.
Toss M, Miligy I, Thompson AM, Khout H, Green AR, Ellis IO, Rakha EA (2017) Current trials to reduce surgical intervention in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: critical review. Breast 35:151–156PubMed
18.
Rea D, Francis A, Wallis M, Thomas J, Bartlett J, Bowden S, Dodwell D, Fallowfield L, Gaunt C, Hanby A, Jenkins V, Matthews L, Pinder S, Pirrie S, Reed M, Wilcox M, Roberts T, Kirwan C, Brookes C, Fairbrother P, Billingham L, Evans A, Young J (2017) Confusion over differences in registration and randomization criteria for the LORIS (low-risk DCIS) trial. Ann Surg Oncol 24(Suppl 3):566–567PubMed
19.
Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR, Eusebi V, Faverly D, van de Vijver MJ, Zafrani B (1994) Ductal carcinoma in situ: A proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 11:167–180PubMed
20.
Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BS, Colburn WJ, Poller DN (1996) A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 77:2267–2274PubMed
21.
Consensus Conference Committee (1998) Consensus Conference on the classi­fication of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 1;82:2293–2295
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Fisher ER, Gregorio RM, Fisher B, Redmond C, Vellios F, Sommers SC (1975) The Pathology of invasive breast cancer. A Syllabus derived from findings of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (Protocol No. 4). Cancer 36:1–85PubMed
27.
Silverstein MJ (2003) The University of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg 186:337–343PubMed
28.
Rudloff U, Brogi E, Reiner AS, Goldberg JI, Brockway JP, Wynveen CA, McCormick B, Patil S, Van Zee KJ (2010) The influence of margin width and volume of disease near margin on benefit of radiation therapy for women with DCIS treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg 251(4):583–591PubMed
29.
Sagara Y, Freedman RA, Vaz-Luis I, Mallory MA, Wong SM, Aydogan F, DeSantis S, Barry WT, Golshan M (2016) Patient Prognostic Score and Associations With Survival Improvement Offered by Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Longitudinal Cohort Study. J Clin Oncol 10;34(11):1190–1196PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Scott MA, Lagios MD, Axelsson K, Rogers LW, Anderson TJ, Page DL (1997) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: reproducibility of histological subtype analysis. Hum Pathol 28:967–973PubMed
31.
Bethwaite P, Smith N, Delahunt B, Kenwright D (1998) Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol 51:450–454PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Sneige N, Lagios MD, Schwarting R, Colburn W, Atkinson E, Weber D, Sahin A, Kemp B, Hoque A, Risin S, Sabichi A, Boone C, Dhingra K, Kelloff G, Lippman S (1999) Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 30(3):257–262
33.
Sloane JP, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, Bellocq JP, Bianchi S, Boecker W, Bussolati G, Coleman D, Connolly CE, Eusebi V, De Miguel C, Dervan P, Drijkoningen R, Elston CW, Faverly D, Gad A, Jacquemier J, Lacerda M, Martinez-Penuela J, Munt C, Peterse JL, Rank F, Sylvan M, Tsakraklides V, Zafrani B (1999) Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorizing ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. Hum Pathol 29(10):1056–1062
34.
Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Grove MR, Tosteson AN (2000) Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. Am J Surg Pathol 24(5):651-659PubMed
35.
Douglas-Jones AG, Morgan JM, Appleton MAC, Attanoos RL, Caslin A, Champ CS, Cotter M, Dallimore NS, Dawson A, Fortt RW, Griffiths AP,Hughes M, Kitching PA, O’Brien C, Rashid AM, Stock D, Verghese A, Williams DW, Williams NW, Williams S (2000) Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. J Clin Pathol 53:596-602PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Gomes DS, Porto SS, Balabram D, Gobbi H (2014) Inter-observer variability between general pathologists and a specialist in breast pathology in the diagnosis of lobular neoplasia, columnar cell lesions, atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Diagn Pathol 19;9:121PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Schuh F, Biazus JV, Resetkova E, Benfica CZ, de Freitas Ventura A, Uchoa D, Graudenz M, Edelweiss MIA (2015) Histopathological grading of breast ductal carcinoma in situ: validation of a web-based survey through intra-observer reproducibility analysis. Diagn Pathol 10:93
38.
Van Bockstal M, Baldewijns M, Colpaert C, Dano H, Floris G, Galant C, Lambein K, Peeters D, Van Renterghem S, Van Rompuy AS, Verbeke S, Verschuere S, Van Dorpe J (2018) Dichotomous histopathological assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast results in substantial interobserver concordance. Histopathology 73(6):923-932PubMed
39.
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159-174PubMed
40.
Van Dooijeweert C, van Diest PJ, Willems SM, Kuijpers CCH, Deckers IAG (2019) Significant inter- and intra-laboratory variation in grading of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a nationwide study of 4901 patients in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 174(2):479-488
Metadata
Title
Grading Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast – What’s Wrong with It?
Authors
Gábor Cserni
Anita Sejben
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Pathology & Oncology Research / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1219-4956
Electronic ISSN: 1532-2807
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-019-00760-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Pathology & Oncology Research 2/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

CUL1 Knockdown Attenuates the Adhesion, Invasion, and Migration of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells via Inhibition of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition

Original Article

Immunohistochemical Staining in the Assessment of Melanoma Tumor Thickness

Original Article

Immunological and Clinicopathological Significance of MFG-E8 Expression in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Original Article

p63 Expression and its Relation to Epithelial Cells Proliferation in Dentigerous Cyst, Odontogenic Keratocyst, and Ameloblastoma

Original Article

All Benign and Malignant Apocrine Breast Lesions Over-Express Claudin 1 and 3 and Are Negative for Claudin 4

Original Article

The Effect of Next-Generation TKI in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Failure of First-Line Treatment: a Meta-Analysis
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits