Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2019

01-10-2019 | Breast Cancer | Brief Report

Low-grade screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ progresses more slowly than high-grade lesions: evidence from an international multi-centre study

Authors: Antonio Ponti, Guglielmo Ronco, Elsebeth Lynge, Mariano Tomatis, Ahti Anttila, Nieves Ascunce, Mireille Broeders, Jean-Luc Bulliard, Isabella Castellano, Patricia Fitzpatrick, Alfonso Frigerio, Solveig Hofvind, Ondřej Májek, Nereo Segnan, Stephen Taplin, the ICSN DCIS Working Group

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Nuclear grade is an important indicator of the biological behaviour of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). De-escalation of treatment has been suggested for low-grade DCIS. Our aim is to estimate the relative rate of progression of DCIS by nuclear grade by analysing the distribution of nuclear grade by detection at initial or subsequent screening.

Methods

We asked International Cancer Screening Network sites to complete, based on their screening and clinical databases, an aggregated data file on DCIS detection, diagnosis and treatment.

Results

Eleven screening programs reported 5068 screen-detected pure DCIS in nearly 7 million screening tests in women 50–69 years of age. For all programs combined, low-grade DCIS were 20.1% (range 11.4–31.8%) of graded DCIS, intermediate grade 31.0% and high grade 48.9%. Detection rates decreased more steeply from initial to subsequent screening in low compared to high-grade DCIS: the ratios of subsequent to initial detection rates were 0.39 for low grade, 0.51 for intermediate grade, and 0.75 for high grade (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the duration of the preclinical detectable phase is longer for low than for high-grade DCIS. The findings from this large multi-centre, international study emphasize that the management of low-grade DCIS should be carefully scrutinized in order to minimize overtreatment of screen-detected slow-growing or indolent lesions. The high variation by site in the proportion of low grade suggests that further pathology standardization and training would be beneficial.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D et al (2016) Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 17(1):109–114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D et al (2016) Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 17(1):109–114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Jacklyn G, Morrel S, McGeechan K et al (2018) Carcinoma in situ of the breast in New South Wales, Australia: current status and trends over the last 40 year. The Breast 37:170–178CrossRefPubMed Jacklyn G, Morrel S, McGeechan K et al (2018) Carcinoma in situ of the breast in New South Wales, Australia: current status and trends over the last 40 year. The Breast 37:170–178CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EAM, Fracheboud J et al (2016) The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 18:47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EAM, Fracheboud J et al (2016) The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 18:47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Ozanne EM, Shieh Y, Barnes J et al (2011) Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:165–173CrossRefPubMed Ozanne EM, Shieh Y, Barnes J et al (2011) Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:165–173CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Nicholson S, Hanby A, Clements K et al (2015) Variations in the management of the axilla in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: evidence from the UK HHS Breast Screening Programme audit of screen detected DCIS. Eur J Surg Oncol 41:86–93CrossRefPubMed Nicholson S, Hanby A, Clements K et al (2015) Variations in the management of the axilla in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: evidence from the UK HHS Breast Screening Programme audit of screen detected DCIS. Eur J Surg Oncol 41:86–93CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Mokbel K, Cutuli B (2006) Heterogeneity of ductal carcinoma in situ and its effects on management. Lancet 7:756–765CrossRef Mokbel K, Cutuli B (2006) Heterogeneity of ductal carcinoma in situ and its effects on management. Lancet 7:756–765CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Wallis MG, Clements K, Kearins O et al (2012) The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time to recurrence after 15 years of follow-up of screen-detected DCIS. Br J Cancer 106:1611–1617CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wallis MG, Clements K, Kearins O et al (2012) The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time to recurrence after 15 years of follow-up of screen-detected DCIS. Br J Cancer 106:1611–1617CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Esserman L, Yau C (2015) Rethinking the standard for ductal carcinoma in situ treatment. JAMA Oncol 1(7):881–883CrossRefPubMed Esserman L, Yau C (2015) Rethinking the standard for ductal carcinoma in situ treatment. JAMA Oncol 1(7):881–883CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Look Hong NJ et al (2019) National consensus recommendations on patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat 174:561–570CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Look Hong NJ et al (2019) National consensus recommendations on patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat 174:561–570CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
go back to reference Morrison AS (1985) Screening in chronic disease, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, p 38 Morrison AS (1985) Screening in chronic disease, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, p 38
13.
go back to reference Lynge E, Ponti A, James T et al (2014) Variation in the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) during screening mammography. A survey within the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN). Eur J Cancer 50(1):185–192CrossRefPubMed Lynge E, Ponti A, James T et al (2014) Variation in the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) during screening mammography. A survey within the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN). Eur J Cancer 50(1):185–192CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Ponti A, Lynge E, James T et al (2014) International variation in management of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer 50(15):2695–2704CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ponti A, Lynge E, James T et al (2014) International variation in management of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer 50(15):2695–2704CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference 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 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
16.
go back to reference Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH et al (1996) A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 77:2267–2274CrossRefPubMed Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH et al (1996) A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 77:2267–2274CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Weigel S, Khil L, Hense HW et al (2018) Detection rates of ductal carcinoma in situ with biennal digital mammography screening: radiologic findings support pathologic model of tumor progression. Radiology 286:424–432CrossRefPubMed Weigel S, Khil L, Hense HW et al (2018) Detection rates of ductal carcinoma in situ with biennal digital mammography screening: radiologic findings support pathologic model of tumor progression. Radiology 286:424–432CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidinger O (2013) Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 271:38–44CrossRefPubMed Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidinger O (2013) Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 271:38–44CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Weigel S, Hense HW, Heidrich J et al (2016) Does age influence the detection rates of low, intermediate and high grade ductal carcinoma in situ? Radiology 278:707–713CrossRefPubMed Weigel S, Hense HW, Heidrich J et al (2016) Does age influence the detection rates of low, intermediate and high grade ductal carcinoma in situ? Radiology 278:707–713CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S et al (2015) Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg 150(8):739–745CrossRefPubMed Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S et al (2015) Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg 150(8):739–745CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Segnan N, Minozzi S, Armaroli P et al (2016) Epidemiologic evidence of slow growing, non-progressive or regressive breast cancer: a systematic review. Int J Cancer 139(3):554–573CrossRefPubMed Segnan N, Minozzi S, Armaroli P et al (2016) Epidemiologic evidence of slow growing, non-progressive or regressive breast cancer: a systematic review. Int J Cancer 139(3):554–573CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference van Dooijeweert C, van Diest PJ, Willems SM et al (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):479–488CrossRefPubMed van Dooijeweert C, van Diest PJ, Willems SM et al (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):479–488CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Low-grade screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ progresses more slowly than high-grade lesions: evidence from an international multi-centre study
Authors
Antonio Ponti
Guglielmo Ronco
Elsebeth Lynge
Mariano Tomatis
Ahti Anttila
Nieves Ascunce
Mireille Broeders
Jean-Luc Bulliard
Isabella Castellano
Patricia Fitzpatrick
Alfonso Frigerio
Solveig Hofvind
Ondřej Májek
Nereo Segnan
Stephen Taplin
the ICSN DCIS Working Group
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05333-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2019 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

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