Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applying the neoadjuvant paradigm to ductal carcinoma in situ

  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Local treatment options for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are virtually identical to those for early invasive breast cancer, despite the fact that the survival from this condition is much higher. Our ability to more appropriately tailor therapy for DCIS is hampered by a lack of understanding of the natural history of DCIS, our limited ability to predict the rate of progression to invasive cancer and the response to therapy, and the absence of tools to follow patients who have not had invasive treatments. Neoadjuvant therapy, which has been proven to be both safe and effective in tailoring treatments for invasive cancer, could be ideally suited to DCIS. However, neoadjuvant therapy requires that doctors and patients delay surgical treatment that has known benefits. In order to successfully introduce this approach into clinical practice, risk assessment and decision support tools will be needed to help physicians and patients feel comfortable that they are not being exposed to unnecessary or excessive risk. In addition, we need better imaging to track extent and progression of disease. Among the possible benefits of the neoadjuvant approach, we may discover that many lesions are responsive and some even reversible, leaving us with treatments that might be tailored to biology and with important clues for breast cancer prevention in high-risk women.

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

  1. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Wilkie H, Ballard-Barbash R. Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results program.Arch Intern Med 2000;160:953–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Henderson C. Incidence of an treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.JAMA 1996;275:913–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Solin LJ, Kurtz J, Fourquet A, et al. Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.J. Clin Oncol 1996;14: 754–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyages J, Delaney G, Taylor R. Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.Cancer 2000;85:616–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17.J Clin Oncol 1998;16:441–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, et al. Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer.N Engl J Med 1993;328:1581–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Julien JP, Bijker N, Fentiman IS, et al. Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853.Lancet 2000;353: 528–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial.Lancet 1999;353: 1993–2000.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E, Dignam J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N. Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: an update of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience.Semin Oncol 2001;28:400–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study.J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90: 1371–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini M, et al. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast.Semin Diagn Pathol 1994;11:223–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Jensen RA, Schuyler PA. Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15–25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy.Cancer 1995;76:1197–200.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fabian C, Kimler B, Zalles C, et al. Short-term breast cancer prediction by random periareolar fine-needle aspiration cytology and the Gail risk model.J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1217–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rebbeck TR, Levin AM, Eisen A, et al. Breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers.J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1475–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Allred DC. Estrogen receptor expression as a predictive marker of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in the treatment of DCIS: findings from NSABP Protocol B-24 (abstract 30).Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;76(suppl 1):S36.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vogel V, Costantino J, Wickerham D, Cronin W. Re: Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study [letter].J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1504.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer.N Engl J Med 1999;340:77–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast Cancer Treatment Guidelines for Patients—Version V, September 2003. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/patient_gls/_english/_breast/index. htm. Accessed October 2003.

  19. Smith TJ, Davidson NE, Schapira DV, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 1998 Update of Recommended Breast Cancer Surveillance Guidelines.J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1080–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Meijers-Heijboer H, Brekelmans C, Menke-Pluymers M, et al. Use of genetic testing and prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in women with breast or ovarian cancer from families with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1675–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lerman C, Hughes C, Croyle R, et al. Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing.Prev Med 2000;31:75–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Habel LA, Moe RE, Daling JR, Holte S, Rossing MA, Weiss NS. Risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with carcinoma in situ of the breast.Ann Surg 1997;225:69–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 2001;19:980–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ozanne E, Adduci K, Esserman L. Computerized decision aid for breast cancer prevention. In: Proceedings of the Society for Medical Decision Making Annual Conference, October 22, 2002, Baltimore, MD [abstract 230].

  25. Ozanne E, Adduci K, Esserman L. Feasibility study of a computerized decision aid for breast cancer prevention. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dec 3–6, 2003, San Antonio, TX.

  26. Ozanne E, Esserman L. A new breast cancer prevention tool incorporates contextual risk assessment and biomarkers [abstract 392].Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:98.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Esserman L, Wolverton D, Hylton N. Magnetic resonance imaging for primary breast cancer management: current role and new applications.Endocr Relat Cancer 2002;9:141–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Esserman L, Sudilovsky D, Barth R, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer by MR imaging type, ER status, grade, and comparative hybridization. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dec 3–6, 2003, San Antonio, TX.

  29. Brem RF, Schoojans JM, Sanow L, Gatewood OM. Reliability of histologic diagnosis of breast cancer with stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy.Am Surg 2001;67:388–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee CH, Carter D, Philpotts LE, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with stereotactic core needle biopsy: can invasion be predicted?Radiology 2000;217:466–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum- assisted breast biopsy.Radiology 1998;208:251–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hwang ES, Kinkel K, Esserman LJ, Lu Y, Weidner N, Hylton NM. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ: value in the diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity.Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:381–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Esserman L, Kaplan E, Partridge S, et al. MRI phenotype is associated with response to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage III breast cancer.Ann Surg Oncol 2001;8:549–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight-year update of Protocol B-17.Cancer 2000;88:242–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Collins R, Armitage J, Parish S, Sleigh P, Peto R. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in 5963 people with diabetes: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.Lancet 2003;361:2005–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Laufs U, Liao JK. Targeting Rho in cardiovascular disease.Circ Res 2000;87:526–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Laufs U, La Fata V, Plutzky J, Liao JK. Upregulation of endothelial nitrix oxide synthase by HMG CoA reductase inhibitors.Circulation 1998;97:1129–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Takemoto M, Node K, Nakagami H, et al. Statins as antioxidant therapy for preventing cardiac myocyte hypertrophy.J Clin Invest 2001;108:1429–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Cauley JA, Zmuda JM, Bauer DC, et al. Does statin use reduce the risk of breast cancer in older women? A prospective study [abstract 1647].Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:413a.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mortimer JE, Axelrod R, Zimbro K. Effect of statins on breast cancer incidence: findings from the Sentara Health Plan [abstract 373].Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:93.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Shim V, Gauthier ML, Sudilovsky D, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression is related to nuclear grade in ductal carcinoma in situ and is increased in its normal adjacent epithelium.Cancer Res 2003; 63:2347–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Waldman FM, DeVries S, Chew KL, Moore DH, Kerlikowske K, Ljung BM. Chromosomal alterations in ductal carcinomas in situ and their in situ recurrences.J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:313–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Deng G, Lu Y, Zlotnikov G, Thor AD, Smith HS. Loss of heterozygosity in normal tissue adjacent to breast carcinomas.Science 1996;274:2057–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Fabian CJ, Kimler BF. Breast cancer chemoprevention: current challenges and a look toward the future.Clin Breast Cancer 2002; 3:113–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sauter ER, Ross E, Daly M, et al. Nipple aspirate fluid: a promising non-invasive method to identify cellular markers of breast cancer risk.Br J Cancer 1997;76:494–501.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Decisions Research Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

    Karen Sepucha PhD

  2. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

    Elissa Ozanne PhD

  3. University of California San Francisco Medical Center, Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, 1600 Divisadero, Floor 2, Box 1710, 94115, San Francisco, CA

    Laura Esserman MD, MBA (Director) & E. Shelley Hwang MD

Authors
  1. Laura Esserman MD, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Sepucha PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elissa Ozanne PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Shelley Hwang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Esserman MD, MBA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Esserman, L., Sepucha, K., Ozanne, E. et al. Applying the neoadjuvant paradigm to ductal carcinoma in situ. Annals of Surgical Oncology 11 (Suppl 1), 28S–36S (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02524793

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02524793

Key Words

Search

Navigation