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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2019

Open Access 01-04-2019 | Epidemiology

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

Authors: Carmen van Dooijeweert, Paul J. van Diest, Stefan M. Willems, Chantal C. H. J. Kuijpers, Lucy I. H. Overbeek, Ivette A. G. Deckers

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

A considerable part of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions may never progress into invasive breast cancer. However, standard treatment consists of surgical excision. Trials aim to identify a subgroup of low-risk DCIS patients that can safely forgo surgical treatment based on histologic grade, which highlights the importance of accurate grading. Using real-life nationwide data, we aimed to create insight and awareness in grading variation of DCIS in daily clinical practice.

Methods

All synoptic pathology reports of pure DCIS resection specimens between 2013 and 2016 were retrieved from PALGA, the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry. Absolute differences in proportions of grade I-III were visualized using funnel plots. Multivariable analysis was performed by logistic regression to correct for case-mix, providing odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for high-grade (III) versus low-grade (I–II) DCIS.

Results

4952 DCIS reports from 36 laboratories were included, of which 12.5% were reported as grade I (range 6.1–24.4%), 39.5% as grade II (18.2–57.6%), and 48.0% as grade III (30.2–72.7%). After correction for case-mix, 14 laboratories (38.9%) reported a significantly lower (n = 4) or higher (n = 10) proportion of high-grade DCIS than the reference laboratory. Adjusted ORs (95%CI) ranged from 0.52 (0.31–0.87) to 3.83 (1.42–10.39). Significant grading differences were also observed among pathologists within laboratories.

Conclusion

In this cohort of 4901 patients, we observed substantial inter- and intra-laboratory variation in DCIS grading, not explained by differences in case-mix. Therefore, there is an urgent need for nationwide standardization of grading practices, especially since the future management of DCIS may alter significantly depending on histologic grade.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Pinder SE, Ellis IO (2003) The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)—current definitions and classification. Breast Cancer Res 5(5):254–257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Welch HG, Black WC (1997) Using autopsy series to estimate the disease “reservoir” for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: how much more breast cancer can we find? Ann of Intern Med 127(11):1023–1028CrossRef
3.
Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L et al (2015) Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer 51(16):2296–2303CrossRefPubMed
4.
Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L et al (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(12):1497–1510CrossRefPubMed
5.
Benson JR, Jatoi I, Toi M (2016) Treatment of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: is nothing better than something? Lancet Oncol 17(10):e442–e451CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Toss M, Miligy I, Thompson AM et al (2017) Current trials to reduce surgical intervention in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: critical review. Breast 35:151–156CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Page DL (2005) The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 103(12):2481–2484CrossRefPubMed
9.
Groen EJ, Elshof LE, Visser LL et al (2017) Finding the balance between over- and under-treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Breast 31:274–283CrossRefPubMed
10.
Youngwirth LM, Boughey JC, Hwang ES (2017) Surgery versus monitoring and endocrine therapy for low-risk DCIS: the COMET trial. Bull Am Coll Surg 102(1):62–63PubMed
11.
Schuh F, Biazus JV, Resetkova E, Benfica CZ, Edelweiss MI (2010) Reproducibility of three classification systems of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using a web-based survey. Pathol Res Pract 206(10):705–711CrossRefPubMed
12.
Elston CW, Sloane JP, Amendoeira I et al (2000) Causes of inconsistency in diagnosing and classifying intraductal proliferations of the breast. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. Eur J Cancer 36(14):1769–1772CrossRefPubMed
13.
Douglas-Jones AG, Morgan JM, Appleton MA et al (2000) Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. J Clin Pathol 53(8):596–602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Kuijpers CC, Sluijter CE, von der Thüsen JH et al (2016) Interlaboratory variability in the histologic grading of colorectal adenocarcinomas in a nationwide cohort. Am J Surg Pathol 40(8):1100–1108CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kuijpers CC, Sluijter CE, von der Thüsen JH et al (2016) Interlaboratory variability in the grading of dysplasia in a nationwide cohort of colorectal adenomas. Histopathology 69(2):187–197CrossRefPubMed
16.
Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G et al (2007) Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 29(1):19–24PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Spiegelhalter DJ (2005) Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med 24(8):1185–1202CrossRefPubMed
18.
Liu H, Peng W (2012) MRI morphological classification of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) correlating with different biological behavior. Eur J Radiol 81(2):214–217CrossRefPubMed
19.
van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EA, Fracheboud J et al (2016) The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 18(1):47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Weigel S, Hense HW, Heidrich J, Berkemeyer S, Heindel W, Heidinger O (2016) Digital mammography screening: does age influence the detection rates of low-, intermediate-, and high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ? Radiology 278(3):707–713CrossRefPubMed
21.
Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR et al (1994) Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 11(3):167–180PubMed
22.
Pinder SE, Duggan C, Ellis IO et al (2010) A new pathological system for grading DCIS with improved prediction of local recurrence: results from the UKCCCR/ANZ DCIS trial. Br J Cancer 103(1):94–100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Lakhani SR (2012) WHO classification of tumours of the breast, 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
24.
Tavasolli FA (1999) Pathology of the breast, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead
25.
Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR et al (1995) Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet 345(8958):1154–1157CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Sluijter CE, van Lonkhuijzen LR, van Slooten HJ, Nagtegaal ID, Overbeek LI (2016) The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review. Virchows Archiv 468(6):639–649CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Farabegoli F, Champeme MH, Bieche I et al (2002) Genetic pathways in the evolution of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. J Pathol 196(3):280–286CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Carmen van Dooijeweert
Paul J. van Diest
Stefan M. Willems
Chantal C. H. J. Kuijpers
Lucy I. H. Overbeek
Ivette A. G. Deckers
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-05082-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2019 Go to the issue

Review

Clinical findings and outcomes of MRI staging of breast cancer in a diverse population

Review

Leveraging the variable natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to select optimal therapy

Epidemiology

Examination of a paradox: recurrent metastatic breast cancer incidence decline without improved distant disease survival: 1990–2011

Review

Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions)

Epidemiology

Prevalence of breast cancer-related risk factors in underweight premenopausal women: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey IV–VI

Brief Report

Alternative transcript imbalance underlying breast cancer susceptibility in a family carrying PALB2 c.3201+5G>T
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