Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 127, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis

  • Shi-Yi Wang
  • Tatyana Shamliyan
  • Beth A. Virnig
  • Robert Kane


While ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is seldom life threatening, the management of DCIS remains a dilemma for patients and their physicians. Aggressive treatment reduces the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), but has never been proven to improve survival. There is interest in identifying the prognostic factors for determining low-risk DCIS patients, but a comprehensive review of high-quality evidence on tumor characteristics in predicting local recurrence has never been carried out. We examined the following tumor characteristics: biomarkers, comedonecrosis, focality, surgical margin, method of detection, tumor grade, and tumor size. For this systematic review we restricted the analyses to the results of subgroup analyses from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and multivariate analyses from RCTs and observational studies. We identified 44 eligible articles. The pooled random-effects risk estimates for IBTR are comedonecrosis 1.71(95% CI, 1.36–2.16), focality 1.95(95% CI, 1.59–2.40), margin 2.25(95% CI, 1.77–2.86), method of detection 1.35(95% CI, 1.12–1.62), tumor grade 1.81(95% CI, 1.53–2.13), and tumor size 1.63(95% CI, 1.30–2.06). Limited evidence indicated that women whose DCIS is ER-negative, PR-negative, or HER2/neu receptor positive have an IBTR higher than those whose DCIS is ER-positive, PR-positive, and HER2/neu receptor negative. A variety of tumor characteristics are significant predictors for IBTR. These results are important for both clinicians and patients to interpret the risk of local recurrence and to decide on a course of treatment.


Ductal carcinoma in situ Meta-analysis Outcome research Tumor characteristics Predictors 



This study was supported by the grant of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 290-02-10064-I. The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in this article should not be construed as an endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


  1. 1.
    Sakorafas GH, Farley DR (2003) Optimal management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Surg Oncol 12:221–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lester SC, Connolly JL, Amin MB (2009) College of American pathologists protocol for the reporting of ductal carcinoma in situ. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyages J, Delaney G, Taylor R (1999) Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Cancer 85:616–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL (2010) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:170–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allegra CJ, Aberle DR, Ganschow P et al (2010) National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference statement: diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ September 22–24, 2009. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:161–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Virnig BA, Wang SY, Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Tuttle TM (2010) Ductal carcinoma in situ: risk factors and impact of screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 41:113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kane RL, Virnig BA, Shamliyan T, Wang SY, Tuttle TM, Wilt T (2010) The impact of surgery, radiation, and systemic treatment on outcomes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 41:130–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shamliyan T, Wang SY, Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Kane RL (2010) Association between patient and tumor characteristics with clinical outcomes in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 41:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Virnig BA, Shamliyan T, Tuttle TM, Kane RL, Wilt TJ (2009) Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Evid Rep Technol Assess 185:1–549Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D et al (2010) AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 63:513–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH et al (2001) Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 20(3 Suppl):21–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Craen AJ, Gussekloo J, Vrijsen B, Westendorp RG (2005) Meta-analysis of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug use and risk of dementia. Am J Epidemiol 161:114–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis, 1st edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH (1997) Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127:820–826PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL et al (2006) Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853—a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol 24:3381–3387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L et al (2001) Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma-in situ: analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853. J Clin Oncol 19:2263–2271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E, Dignam J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N (2001) 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 28:400–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fisher ER, Land SR, Saad RS et al (2007) Pathologic variables predictive of breast events in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Clin Pathol 128:86–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fisher ER, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E et al (1999) Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight-year update of Protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma. Cancer 86:429–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ringberg A, Nordgren H, Thorstensson S et al (2007) Histopathological risk factors for ipsilateral breast events after breast conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast—results from the Swedish randomised trial. Eur J Cancer 43:291–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holmberg L, Garmo H, Granstrand B et al (2008) Absolute risk reductions for local recurrence after postoperative radiotherapy after sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol 26:1247–1252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):94–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wai ES, Lesperance ML, Alexander CS et al (2010) Predictors of local recurrence in a population-based cohort of women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast conserving surgery alone. Ann Surg Oncol 2010. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ottesen GL, Graversen HP, Blichert-Toft M, Christensen IJ, Andersen JA (2000) Carcinoma in situ of the female breast. 10 year follow-up results of a prospective nationwide study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 62:197–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ben-David MA, Sturtz DE, Griffith KA et al (2007) Long-term results of conservative surgery and radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ using lung density correction: the University of Michigan experience. Breast J 13:392–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cutuli B, Cohen-Solal-Le Nir C, De Lafontan B et al (2001) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast results of conservative and radical treatments in 716 patients. Eur J Cancer 37:2365–2372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cox CE, Hyacinthe M, Gonzalez RJ et al (1997) Cytologic evaluation of lumpectomy margins in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 4:644–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rudloff U, Jacks LM, Goldberg JI et al (2010) Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol (in press)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chuwa EW, Tan VH, Tan PH, Yong WS, Ho GH, Wong CY (2008) Treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ in an Asian population: outcome and prognostic factors. ANZ J Surg 78:42–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meijnen P, Oldenburg HS, Peterse JL, Bartelink H, Rutgers EJ (2008) Clinical outcome after selective treatment of patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol 15:235–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boland GP, Chan KC, Knox WF, Roberts SA, Bundred NJ (2003) Value of the Van Nuys prognostic index in prediction of recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ after breast-conserving surgery. Br J Surg 90:426–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barnes NL, Khavari S, Boland GP, Cramer A, Knox WF, Bundred NJ (2005) Absence of HER4 expression predicts recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin Cancer Res 11:2163–2168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Altintas S, Lambein K, Huizing MT et al (2009) Prognostic significance of oncogenic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a clinicopathologic study. Breast J 15:120–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schouten van der Velden AP, van Vugt R, Van Dijck JA, Leer JW, Wobbes T (2007) Local recurrences after different treatment strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a population-based study in the East Netherlands. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:703–710Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Omlin A, Amichetti M, Azria D et al (2006) Boost radiotherapy in young women with ductal carcinoma in situ: a multicentre, retrospective study of the Rare Cancer Network. Lancet Oncol 7:652–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    MacDonald HR, Silverstein MJ, Mabry H et al (2005) Local control in ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision alone: incremental benefit of larger margins. Am J Surg 190:521–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cornfield DB, Palazzo JP, Schwartz GF et al (2004) The prognostic significance of multiple morphologic features and biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a study of a large cohort of patients treated with surgery alone. Cancer 100:2317–2327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stallard S, Hole DA, Purushotham AD et al (2001) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast—among factors predicting for recurrence, distance from the nipple is important. Eur J Surg Oncol 27:373–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sahoo S, Recant WM, Jaskowiak N, Tong L, Heimann R (2005) Defining negative margins in DCIS patients treated with breast conservation therapy: The University of Chicago experience. Breast J 11:242–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    de Roos MA, de Bock GH, de Vries J, van der Vegt B, Wesseling J (2007) p53 overexpression is a predictor of local recurrence after treatment for both in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. J Surg Res 140:109–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rakovitch E, Pignol JP, Hanna W et al (2007) Significance of multifocality in ductal carcinoma in situ: outcomes of women treated with breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol 25(35):5591–5596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Douglas-Jones AG, Logan J, Morgan JM, Johnson R, Williams R (2002) Effect of margins of excision on recurrence after local excision of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol 55:581–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Provenzano E, Hopper JL, Giles GG, Marr G, Venter DJ, Armes JE (2003) Biological markers that predict clinical recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer 39:622–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Habel LA, Daling JR, Newcomb PA et al (1998) Risk of recurrence after ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7:689–696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I et al (2003) Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:1692–1702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kerlikowske K, Molinaro AM, Gauthier ML et al (2010) Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 5(102):627–637Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Warren JL, Weaver DL, Bocklage T et al (2005) The frequency of ipsilateral second tumors after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS: a population based analysis. Cancer 104:1840–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS, Daling JR (2006) Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988–2001. Cancer 106:2104–2112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Smith BD, Haffty BG, Buchholz TA et al (2006) Effectiveness of radiation therapy in older women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1302–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Innos K, Horn-Ross PL (2008) Risk of second primary breast cancers among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 111:531–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Warnberg F, Bergh J, Zack M, Holmberg L (2001) Risk factors for subsequent invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death after ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based case–control study in Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 10:495–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA et al (2005) Long-term outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 103:1137–1146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Carlson GW, Page A, Johnson E, Nicholson K, Styblo TM, Wood WC (2007) Local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ after skin-sparing mastectomy. J Am Coll Surg 204:1074–1078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    de Mascarel I, MacGrogan G, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Soubeyran I, Picot V, Coindre JM (2002) Breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: a definition supported by a long-term study of 1248 serially sectioned ductal carcinomas. Cancer 94:2134–2142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Di Saverio S, Catena F, Santini D et al (2008) 259 Patients with DCIS of the breast applying USC/Van Nuys prognostic index: a retrospective review with long term follow up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 109:405–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Miller NA, Chapman JA, Fish EB et al (2001) In situ duct carcinoma of the breast: clinical and histopathologic factors and association with recurrent carcinoma. Breast J 7:292–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vicini FA, Kestin LL, Goldstein NS et al (2000) Impact of young age on outcome in patients with ductal carcinoma-in situ treated with breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol 18:296–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vargas C, Kestin L, Go N et al (2005) Factors associated with local recurrence and cause-specific survival in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:1514–1521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Siverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S et al (1999) The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med 340:1455–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Goldstein NS, Kestin L, Vicini F (2000) Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: pathologic features associated with local recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Am J Surg Pathol 24:1058–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M (2010) What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 17:558–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, Malcarne V, Beitsch PD, Ollila DW (2009) Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg 209:608–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, Keller MR (2009) Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 27:1615–1620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Houghton J, George WD, Cuzick J et al (2003) Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 362:95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Allred D, Bryant J, Land S et al (2002) Estrogen receptor expression as a predictive marker of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in the treatment of DCIS: findings from NSABP Protocol B-24. Breast Cancer Res Treat 76:S36 (suppl 1; abstr 30)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast Cancer—V.2.2011. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Inc, Fort Washington. Available at: Accessed December 31, 2010
  67. 67.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287–5312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY et al (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:15–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(1):118–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhang J, Yu KF (1998) What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 280:1690–1691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shi-Yi Wang
    • 1
  • Tatyana Shamliyan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Beth A. Virnig
    • 1
  • Robert Kane
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and ManagementUniversity of Minnesota School of Public HealthMinneapolisMinnesota
  2. 2.Minnesota Evidence-based Practice CenterMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations