Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Radiation Management of DCIS and Elimination of RT in Low-risk Disease

  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This study summarizes the management and outcomes of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). It will review recent literature including data supporting the use of a radiation boost, partial breast irradiation, endocrine therapy, HER2 therapy, genomic assays, and omission of radiation or surgery.

Recent Findings

Evidence suggests there are a cohort of patients who may benefit from either tumor bed boost, partial breast irradiation, or omission of radiation.

Summary

The management for DCIS is continuously evolving in order to identify patients who have higher risk features that necessitate aggressive treatment and those with more favorable features in whom we can de-escalate treatment.

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 •• Of major importance

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ryser MD, Hendrix LH, Worni M, Liu Y, Hyslop T, Hwang ES. Incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ in the United States, 2000–2014. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28(8):1316–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Alaeikhanehshir S, Engelhardt EG, van Duijnhoven FH, van Seijen M, Bhairosing PA, Pinto D, et al. The impact of patient characteristics and lifestyle factors on the risk of an ipsilateral event after a primary DCIS: a systematic review. Breast. 2020;50:95–103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan LW, Rabban J, Hwang ES, Bevan A, Alvarado M, Ewing C, et al. Is radiation indicated in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and close or positive mastectomy margins? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(1):25–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Childs SK, Chen YH, Duggan MM, Golshan M, Pochebit S, Punglia RS, et al. Impact of margin status on local recurrence after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(4):948–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fitzsullivan E, Lari SA, Smith B, Caudle AS, Krishnamurthy S, Lucci A, et al. Incidence and consequence of close margins in patients with ductal carcinoma-in situ treated with mastectomy: is further therapy warranted? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(13):4103–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Mamtani A, Nakhlis F, Downs-Canner S, Zabor EC, Morrow M, King TA, et al. Impact of age on locoregional and distant recurrence after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ with or without microinvasion. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(13):4264–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Rashtian A, Iganej S, Amy Liu IL, Natarajan S. Close or positive margins after mastectomy for DCIS: pattern of relapse and potential indications for radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72(4):1016–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wärnberg F, Garmo H, Emdin S, Hedberg V, Adwall L, Sandelin K, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ: 20 years follow-up in the randomized SweDCIS Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(32):3613–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Donker M, Litière S, Werutsky G, Julien JP, Fentiman IS, Agresti R, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma In Situ: 15-year recurrence rates and outcome after a recurrence, from the EORTC 10853 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32):4054–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6):478–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Correa C, McGale P, Taylor C, Wang Y, Clarke M, Davies C, et al. Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):162–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sagara Y, Freedman RA, Vaz-Luis I, Mallory MA, Wong SM, Aydogan F, et al. 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. 2016;34(11):1190–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Narod SA. Association of radiotherapy with survival in women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ with lumpectomy or mastectomy. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(4):e181100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Allred DC, Anderson SJ, Paik S, Wickerham DL, Nagtegaal ID, Swain SM, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on NSABP protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(12):1268–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Forsyth S, Bundred NJ, et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(1):21–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Forbes JF, Sestak I, Howell A, Bonanni B, Bundred N, Levy C, et al. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10021):866–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Margolese RG, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, et al. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10021):849–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moran MS, Zhao Y, Ma S, Kirova Y, Fourquet A, Chen P, et al. Association of radiotherapy boost for ductal carcinoma in situ with local control after whole-breast radiotherapy. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(8):1060–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bartelink H, Maingon P, Poortmans P, Weltens C, Fourquet A, Jager J, et al. Whole-breast irradiation with or without a boost for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(1):47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chua BH, Link EK, Kunkler IH, Whelan TJ, Westenberg AH, Gruber G, et al. Radiation doses and fractionation schedules in non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ in the breast (BIG 3–07/TROG 07.01): a randomised, factorial, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2022;400(10350):431–40. This study was the first Phase III RCT to conclude that non-low risk DCIS patients benefit from tumor bed boost and that hypofractionation could be adopted as standard of care for patients with DCIS with no compromise on local control.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sanders ME, Scroggins T, Ampil FL, Li BD. Accelerated partial breast irradiation in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(8):996–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liljegren G, Holmberg L, Bergh J, Lindgren A, Tabar L, Nordgren H, et al. 10-Year results after sector resection with or without postoperative radiotherapy for stage I breast cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(8):2326–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith BD, Arthur DW, Buchholz TA, Haffty BG, Hahn CA, Hardenbergh PH, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation consensus statement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(4):987–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Correa C, Harris EE, Leonardi MC, Smith BD, Taghian AG, Thompson AM, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation: executive summary for the update of an ASTRO Evidence-Based Consensus Statement. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017;7(2):73–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McCormick B, Winter K, Hudis C, Kuerer HM, Rakovitch E, Smith BL, et al. RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(7):709–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rodriguez N, Sanz X, Dengra J, Foro P, Membrive I, Reig A, et al. Five-year outcomes, cosmesis, and toxicity with 3-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy to deliver accelerated partial breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(5):1051–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Polgar C, Fodor J, Major T, Sulyok Z, Kasler M. Breast-conserving therapy with partial or whole breast irradiation: ten-year results of the Budapest randomized trial. Radiother Oncol. 2013;108(2):197–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Offersen BV, Alsner J, Nielsen HM, Jakobsen EH, Nielsen MH, Stenbygaard L, et al. Partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation for early breast cancer patients in a randomized phase III trial: the Danish Breast Cancer Group Partial Breast Irradiation Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(36):4189–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Coles CE, Griffin CL, Kirby AM, Titley J, Agrawal RK, Alhasso A, et al. Partial-breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery for patients with early breast cancer (UK IMPORT LOW trial): 5-year results from a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10099):1048–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Meattini I, Marrazzo L, Saieva C, Desideri I, Scotti V, Simontacchi G, et al. Accelerated partial-breast irradiation compared with whole-breast irradiation for early breast cancer: long-term results of the randomized phase III APBI-IMRT-Florence Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(35):4175–83. This was a Phase III RCT that reported long term 10 year data that showed there was no difference in local control between APBI and WBI for patients with early stage breast cancer. DCIS specific outcomes were not reported but 11% had DCIS alone.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Whelan TJ, Julian JA, Berrang TS, Kim DH, Germain I, Nichol AM, et al. External beam accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery in women with ductal carcinoma in situ and node-negative breast cancer (RAPID): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10215):2165–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vicini FA, Cecchini RS, White JR, Arthur DW, Julian TB, Rabinovitch RA, et al. Long-term primary results of accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: a randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10215):2155–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Strnad V, Polgár C, Ott OJ, Hildebrandt G, Kauer-Dorner D, Knauerhase H, et al. Accelerated partial breast irradiation using sole interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy compared with whole-breast irradiation with boost for early breast cancer: 10-year results of a GEC-ESTRO randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(3):262–72. This study was a Phase III RCT that reported 10 year data concluding that APBI was not inferior to WBI in patients with early stage breast cancer. Importantly, they reported that in patients with DCIS alone, there was no difference between local control with APBI versus WBI.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Solin LJ, Gray R, Hughes LL, Wood WC, Lowen MA, Badve SS, et al. Surgical Excision without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 12-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(33):3938–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wong JS, Kaelin CM, Troyan SL, Gadd MA, Gelman R, Lester SC, et al. Prospective study of wide excision alone for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(7):1031–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McCormick B, Winter KA, Woodward W, Kuerer HM, Sneige N, Rakovitch E, et al. Randomized phase III trial evaluating radiation following surgical excision for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term report from NRG Oncology/RTOG 9804. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(32):3574–82. This study was a Phase III RCT that reported 13 year data that radiation omission can be considered for some patients with DCIS considered “good-risk”.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Erbas B, Provenzano E, Armes J, Gertig D. The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;97(2):135–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, Frank E, Pinto D, Basila D, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Iwata H. UMIN clinical trials registry 2017 [updated 07/20/2017. Available from: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000032260. Accessed 22 May 2023.

  41. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Skinner VP, Dif N, et al. 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. 2015;51(12):1497–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, Wallis M, Bartlett JM, Brookes C, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(16):2296–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lorizio W, Wu AH, Beattie MS, Rugo H, Tchu S, Kerlikowske K, et al. Clinical and biomarker predictors of side effects from tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132(3):1107–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998;351(9114):1451-67

  45. Decensi A, Gandini S, Serrano D, Cazzaniga M, Pizzamiglio M, Maffini F, et al. Randomized dose-ranging trial of tamoxifen at low doses in hormone replacement therapy users. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(27):4201–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Decensi A, Robertson C, Viale G, Pigatto F, Johansson H, Kisanga ER, et al. A randomized trial of low-dose tamoxifen on breast cancer proliferation and blood estrogenic biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(11):779–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Sestak I, Lazzeroni M, Serrano D, Rotmensz N, Cazzaniga M, et al. Benefit of low-dose tamoxifen in a large observational cohort of high risk ER positive breast DCIS. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(9):2127–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lazzeroni M, Puntoni M, Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Serrano D, Boni L, Buttiron Webber T, et al. Randomized placebo controlled trial of low-dose tamoxifen to prevent recurrence in breast noninvasive neoplasia: a 10-year follow-up of TAM-01 study. J Clin Oncol. 2023:JCO2202900. This study was a multicenter RCT that analyzed if low-dose tamoxifen was effective in reducing the recurrence of breast noninvasive neoplasia. At 10 years, they found that in patients with DCIS alone, low-dose tamoxifen reduced recurrences by 50%.

  49. DeCensi A, Puntoni M, Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Caviglia S, Avino F, Cortesi L, et al. Randomized placebo controlled trial of low-dose tamoxifen to prevent local and contralateral recurrence in breast intraepithelial neoplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(19):1629–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Borgquist S, Zhou W, Jirstrom K, Amini RM, Sollie T, Sorlie T, et al. The prognostic role of HER2 expression in ductal breast carcinoma in situ (DCIS); a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:468.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Williams KE, Barnes NLP, Cramer A, Johnson R, Cheema K, Morris J, et al. Molecular phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(5):1019–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Cobleigh MA, Anderson SJ, Siziopikou KP, Arthur DW, Julian TB, Rabinovitch R, et al. Primary results of NRG Oncology / NSABP B-43: phase III trial comparing concurrent trastuzumab (T) and radiation therapy (RT) with RT alone for women with HER2-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) after lumpectomy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2020;38(15_suppl):508.  This Phase III trial demonstrated no benefit in local recurrence with adjuvant trastuzumab patients. It did identify a group of DCIS patients that are higher risk of local recurrence, thereby identifying HER2 as a potential prognostic biomarker in DCIS. 

  53. Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, Butler SM, Hughes LL, Yoshizawa C, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(10):701–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Baehner FL, Saskin R, Butler SM, et al. A population-based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast-conserving surgery alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;152(2):389–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Sutradhar R, Baehner FL, Miller DP, et al. Multigene expression assay and benefit of radiotherapy after breast conservation in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(4).

  56. Alvarado M, Carter DL, Guenther JM, Hagans J, Lei RY, Leonard CE, et al. The impact of genomic testing on the recommendation for radiation therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective clinical utility assessment of the 12-gene DCIS score result. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(8):935–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bremer T, Whitworth PW, Patel R, Savala J, Barry T, Lyle S, et al. A biological signature for breast ductal carcinoma in situ to predict radiotherapy benefit and assess recurrence risk. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(23):5895–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wärnberg F, Karlsson P, Holmberg E, Sandelin K, Whitworth PW, Savala J, et al. Prognostic risk assessment and prediction of radiotherapy benefit for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast, in a randomized clinical trial (SweDCIS). Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(23).

  59. Vicini FA, Mann GB, Shah C, Weinmann S, Leo MC, Whitworth P, et al. A novel biosignature identifies patients with DCIS with high risk of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023;115(1):93–102. This study identified a higher risk subset of patients (RRt) with DCIS using a new biosignature that combined DCISionRT and the EGFR/HER2/KRAS pathway indicating that these patients may warrant further treatment.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Whitworth PW, Shah CS, Vicini FA, Rabinovitch R, Margenthaler JA, Warnberg F, et al. Assessing the benefit of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients following breast-conserving surgery with or without radiation stratified by a 7-gene predictive DCIS biosignature. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2022;40(16_suppl):502. This was an abstract that reported that patients in the Low-risk group (as per biosignature that combined DS with RRt) did not have a benefit of BCS and endocrine therapy but patients in the elevated-risk and residual-risk group did have a lower 10-year IBR than BCS alone.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Health and Perlmutter Cancer Center, 160 E. 34th Street New York, New York, 10016, USA

    Aishwarya Shah & Naamit Kurshan Gerber

Authors
  1. Aishwarya Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naamit Kurshan Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.S. and N.G. wrote and reviewed the manuscript and tables.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naamit Kurshan Gerber.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

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

Competing Interests

Dr. Gerber reports grants from Prelude Dx, outside the submitted work. We discuss this company’s assay for DCIS in this review 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.

Disclaimer

This was an abstract that reported that patients in the low-risk group (as per biosignature that combined DS with RRt) did not have a benefit of BCS and endocrine therapy but patients in the elevated-risk and residual-risk group did have a lower 10-year IBR than BCS alone.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, A., Gerber, N.K. Radiation Management of DCIS and Elimination of RT in Low-risk Disease. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 15, 175–184 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00499-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00499-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation