Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

IV Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, Including its Histologic Subtypes and Grades

  • Best Practice Approaches Breast Radiology-Pathology Correlation and Management (J Scheel and MR Kilgore, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is a heterogenous intraductal disease that exists within a spectrum of intraepithelial abnormalities ranging from atypia to invasive carcinoma. The vast majority of DCIS is diagnosed in asymptomatic women on screening mammography as suspicious calcifications, but can less commonly present as a palpable mass, suspicious nipple discharge, or as suspicious enhancement in high-risk women being screened with MRI. The distinction between atypia and low-grade DCIS is nuanced, and significant overlap in the imaging appearance of DCIS coupled with interobserver variability in diagnosing DCIS on pathology emphasizes the importance of collaboration between radiologist and pathologist when making a DCIS diagnosis. Under sampling or sampling error at core biopsy might lead to a diagnosis of atypia instead of DCIS or DCIS instead of invasive carcinoma, which has important management implications.

Recent Findings

Classification of DCIS continues to evolve as it relates to likelihood of recurrence; currently, nuclear grade, presence or absence of necrosis, and margin status play key roles.

Summary

While current treatment options for DCIS remain relatively aggressive and uniform for this non-lethal disease, on-going clinical trials, newer prognostic indices, and incorporation of genomics, proteomics, and radiomics aim to assist with optimizing DCIS management with the goal of decreasing overtreatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Parikh U, Chhor CM, Mercado CL. Ductal carcinoma in situ: the whole truth. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(2):246–55. Epub 2017/10/19. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18778. PubMed PMID: 29045181.

  2. D’Orsi CJ. Imaging for the diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):214–7. Epub 2010/10/20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq037. PubMed PMID: 20956833; PMCID: PMC5161079.

  3. • Chootipongchaivat S, van Ravesteyn NT, Li X, Huang H, Weedon-Fekjaer H, Ryser MD, Weaver DL, Burnside ES, Heckman-Stoddard BM, de Koning HJ, Lee SJ. Modeling the natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ based on population data. Breast Cancer Res. 2020;22(1):53. Epub 2020/05/29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-020-01287-6. PubMed PMID: 32460821; PMCID: PMC7251719.This paper utilized two well-established population models and evaluated six possbile DCIS natural history submodels. Their results suggest that without biopsy or surgical excision the majority of screen-detected DCIS will progress to invasive breast cancer within relatively short time.

  4. Foote FW, Stewart FW. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a rare form of mammary cancer. Am J Pathol. 1941;17(4):491–6 3. Epub 1941/07/01. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.32.4.234. PubMed PMID: 19970575; PMCID: PMC1965212.

  5. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100(1):57–70. Epub 2000/01/27. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81683-9. PubMed PMID: 10647931.

  6. Lopez-Garcia MA, Geyer FC, Lacroix-Triki M, Marchio C, Reis-Filho JS. Breast cancer precursors revisited: molecular features and progression pathways. Histopathology. 2010;57(2):171–92. Epub 2010/05/27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03568.x. PubMed PMID: 20500230.

  7. Schuh F, Biazus JV, Resetkova E, Benfica CZ, Ventura Ade F, Uchoa D, Graudenz M, Edelweiss MI. Histopathological grading of breast ductal carcinoma in situ: validation of a web-based survey through intra-observer reproducibility analysis. Diagn Pathol. 2015;10:93. Epub 2015/07/15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-015-0320-2. PubMed PMID: 26159429; PMCID: PMC4702358.

  8. Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M, Kimijima I, Okumoto T, Seiji K, Takahashi S. Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics. 2010;30(5):1183–98. Epub 2010/09/14. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.305095073. PubMed PMID: 20833844.

  9. Consensus Conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. The Consensus Conference Committee. Cancer. 1997;80(9):1798–802. Epub 1997/11/14. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19971101)80:9<1798::aid-cncr15>3.0.co;2-0. PubMed PMID: 9351550.

  10. • Cserni G, Sejben A. Grading ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast - what’s wrong with it? Pathol Oncol Res. 2020;26(2):665–71. Epub 2019/11/30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-019-00760-8. PubMed PMID: 31776839; PMCID: PMC7242244. This review looks at the heterogenity of grading DCIS with a goal of emphasizing the inconsistences among current grading and classification systems. This paper impresses the importance of a uniform and universally recognized grading system so that research can further determine if low-grade DCIS lesions require the same treatment as high-grade lesions.

  11. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, Fechner RE, Kempson RL, Gelman R, Page DL. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(12):1133–43. Epub 1992/12/01. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199212000-00001. PubMed PMID: 1463092.

  12. Miller NA, Chapman JA, Fish EB, Link MA, Fishell E, Wright B, Lickley HL, McCready DR, Hanna WM. In situ duct carcinoma of the breast: clinical and histopathologic factors and association with recurrent carcinoma. Breast J. 2001;7(5):292–302. Epub 2002/03/22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4741.2001.99124.x. PubMed PMID: 11906438.

  13. Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, Geller BM, Onega T, Tosteson AN, Nelson HD, Pepe MS, Allison KH, Schnitt SJ, O’Malley FP, Weaver DL. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA. 2015;313(11):1122–32. Epub 2015/03/18. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.1405. PubMed PMID: 25781441; PMCID: PMC4516388.

  14. D’Orsi CJ. ACR BI-RADS atlas : breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 2013.

  15. Baker JA, Grimm LJ, Johnson KS. A proposal to define three new breast calcification shapes: square, sandwich, and teardrop, pill & capsule. Journal of Breast Imaging. 2019;1(3):186–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moon HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Yoon JH, Park VY. Comparison of clinical and pathologic characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ detected on mammography versus ultrasound only in asymptomatic patients. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019;45(1):68–77. Epub 2018/10/17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.09.003. PubMed PMID: 30322671.

  17. Wang LC, Sullivan M, Du H, Feldman MI, Mendelson EB. US appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics. 2013;33(1):213–28. Epub 2013/01/17. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.331125092. PubMed PMID: 23322838.

  18. Goldbach AR, Tuite CM, Ross E. Clustered microcysts at breast US: outcomes and updates for appropriate nanagement recommendations. Radiology. 2020;295(1):44–51. Epub 2020/02/19. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020191505. PubMed PMID: 32068502.

  19. Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Khetani K, Abdullah N, Joseph L, Kao E. Mammographically non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: sonographic features with pathological correlation in 35 patients. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(6):628–36. Epub 2009/05/06. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2008.12.013. PubMed PMID: 19414087.

  20. • Shehata MN, Rahbar H, Flanagan MR, Kilgore MR, Lee CI, Ryser MD, Lowry KP. Risk for upgrade to malignancy after breast core needle biopsy diagnosis of lobular neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(10):1207–19. Epub 2020/08/31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.036. PubMed PMID: 32861602. This review article looked at the risk of upgrade when classic lobular neoplasia was diagnosed on core needle biopsy. The authors concluded that the risk for upgrade to malignancy was low and suggested imaging follow-up as an alternative to surgical excision.

  21. Foschini MP, Miglio R, Fiore R, Baldovini C, Castellano I, Callagy G, Bianchi S, Kaya H, Amendoeira I, Querzoli P, Poli F, Scatena C, Cordoba A, Pietribiasi F, Kovacs A, Faistova H, Cserni G, Quinn C. Pre-operative management of pleomorphic and florid lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: report of a large multi-institutional series and review of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(12):2279–86. Epub 2019/07/16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.07.011. PubMed PMID: 31301938.

  22. Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EA, Comstock C, Kurtz C, Kubik R, Madjar H, Lepori D, Kampmann G, Mundinger A, Baege A, Decker T, Hosch S, Tausch C, Delaloye JF, Morris E, Varga Z. First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159(2):203–13. Epub 2016/08/16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3935-4. PubMed PMID: 27522516; PMCID: PMC5012144.

  23. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, Kuhn W, Schild HH. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):485–92. Epub 2007/08/19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61232-X. PubMed PMID: 17693177.

  24. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, Peacock S, Smazal SF, Maki DD, Julian TB, DePeri ER, Bluemke DA, Schnall MD, Group ATI. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(13):1295–303. Epub 2007/03/30. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa065447. PubMed PMID: 17392300.

  25. Ikeda DM, Miyake KK. Breast imaging: the requisites, Third Edition2017.

  26. Gomes DS, Porto SS, Balabram D, Gobbi H. 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. 2014;9:121. Epub 2014/06/21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-9-121. PubMed PMID: 24948027; PMCID: PMC4071798.

  27. O’Malley FP, Mohsin SK, Badve S, Bose S, Collins LC, Ennis M, Kleer CG, Pinder SE, Schnitt SJ. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of flat epithelial atypia of the breast. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(2):172–9. Epub 2006/01/21. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800514. PubMed PMID: 16424892.

  28. Verschuur-Maes AH, van Deurzen CH, Monninkhof EM, van Diest PJ. Columnar cell lesions on breast needle biopsies: is surgical excision necessary? A systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012;255(2):259–65. Epub 2011/10/13. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318233523f. PubMed PMID: 21989373.

  29. Said SM, Visscher DW, Nassar A, Frank RD, Vierkant RA, Frost MH, Ghosh K, Radisky DC, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC. Flat epithelial atypia and risk of breast cancer: a Mayo cohort study. Cancer. 2015;121(10):1548–55. Epub 2015/02/03. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29243. PubMed PMID: 25639678; PMCID: PMC4424157.

  30. Calhoun BC, Sobel A, White RL, Gromet M, Flippo T, Sarantou T, Livasy CA. Management of flat epithelial atypia on breast core biopsy may be individualized based on correlation with imaging studies. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(5):670–6. Epub 2014/11/22. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2014.159. PubMed PMID: 25412845.

  31. Allison KH, Reisch LM, Carney PA, Weaver DL, Schnitt SJ, O’Malley FP, Geller BM, Elmore JG. Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel. Histopathology. 2014;65(2):240–51. Epub 2014/02/12. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12387. PubMed PMID: 24511905; PMCID: PMC4506133.

  32. Bacci J, MacGrogan G, Alran L, Labrot-Hurtevent G. Management of radial scars/complex sclerosing lesions of the breast diagnosed on vacuum-assisted large-core biopsy: is surgery always necessary? Histopathology. 2019;75(6):900–15. Epub 2019/07/10. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13950. PubMed PMID: 31286532.

  33. Collins LC, Schnitt SJ. Papillary lesions of the breast: selected diagnostic and management issues. Histopathology. 2008;52(1):20–9. Epub 2008/01/04. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02898.x. PubMed PMID: 18171414.

  34. Barrio AV, Van Zee KJ. Controversies in the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Annu Rev Med. 2017;68:197–211. Epub 2017/01/19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-050715-104920. PubMed PMID: 28099081; PMCID: PMC5532880.

  35. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, Frank E, Pinto D, Basila D, Collyar D, Bennett A, Kaplan C, Rosenberg S, Thompson A, Weiss A, Partridge A. The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e026797. Epub 2019/03/14. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026797. PubMed PMID: 30862637; PMCID: PMC6429899.

  36. Syed A, Eleti S, Kumar V, Ahmad A, Thomas H. Validation of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram to detect non-sentinel lymph node metastases in a United Kingdom cohort. G Chir. 2018;39(1):12–9. Epub 2018/03/20. https://doi.org/10.11138/gchir/2018.39.1.012. PubMed PMID: 29549676; PMCID: PMC5902139.

  37. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BS, Colburn WJ, Poller DN. A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 1996;77(11):2267–74. Epub 1996/06/01. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960601)77:11<2267::AID-CNCR13>3.0.CO;2-V. PubMed PMID: 8635094.

  38. Oncotype DX DCIS score predicts recurrence. Cancer Discov. 2015;5(2):OF3. Epub 2015/02/07. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-NB2014-189. PubMed PMID: 25656901.

  39. Emdin SO, Granstrand B, Ringberg A, Sandelin K, Arnesson LG, Nordgren H, Anderson H, Garmo H, Holmberg L, Wallgren A, Swedish Breast Cancer G. SweDCIS: radiotherapy after sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Results of a randomised trial in a population offered mammography screening. Acta Oncol. 2006;45(5):536–43. Epub 2006/07/26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860600681569. PubMed PMID: 16864166.

  40. Chou SS, Gombos EC, Chikarmane SA, Giess CS, Jayender J. Computer-aided heterogeneity analysis in breast MR imaging assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ: correlating histologic grade and receptor status. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46(6):1748–59. Epub 2017/04/04. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25712. PubMed PMID: 28371110; PMCID: PMC5624816.

  41. Kim SA, Cho N, Ryu EB, Seo M, Bae MS, Chang JM, Moon WK. Background parenchymal signal enhancement ratio at preoperative MR imaging: association with subsequent local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ after breast conservation surgery. Radiology. 2014;270(3):699–707. Epub 2013/10/16. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130459. PubMed PMID: 24126372.

  42. Luo J, Johnston BS, Kitsch AE, Hippe DS, Korde LA, Javid S, Lee JM, Peacock S, Lehman CD, Partridge SC, Rahbar H. Ductal carcinoma in situ: quantitative preoperative breast MR imaging features associated with recurrence after treatment. Radiology. 2017;285(3):788–97. Epub 2017/09/16. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170587. PubMed PMID: 28914599; PMCID: PMC5708288.

  43. Rahbar H, McDonald ES, Lee JM, Partridge SC, Lee CI. How can advanced imaging be used to mitigate potential breast cancer overdiagnosis? Acad Radiol. 2016;23(6):768–73. Epub 2016/03/28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.02.008. PubMed PMID: 27017136; PMCID: PMC4867276.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195-7117, USA

    Sarah Anderson

  2. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC), 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356100, Seattle, WA, 98195-6100, USA

    Elizabeth Parker

  3. Breast Imaging Section, Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 1144 Eastlake Ave E, Seattle, WA, LG2-20098109-1023, USA

    Habib Rahbar & John R. Scheel

Authors
  1. Sarah Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Habib Rahbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John R. Scheel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Anderson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Sarah Anderson, John Scheel, and Elizabeth Parker declare no conflict of interest.

Habib Rahbar has grant funding with GE Healthcare not related to this article.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Habib Rahbar is a senior author.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Best Practice Approaches Breast Radiology-Pathology Correlation and Management.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PPTX 28448 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, S., Parker, E., Rahbar, H. et al. IV Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, Including its Histologic Subtypes and Grades. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 13, 398–404 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-021-00439-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-021-00439-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation