Skip to main content

Prognostische Faktoren beim duktalen Carcinoma in situ

Prognostic factors in ductal carcinoma in situ

Zusammenfassung

Das duktale Carcinoma in situ (DCIS) ist eine heterogene Erkrankung mit einem Progressionsrisiko von etwa 30–50%. Unsere Kenntnisse über den natürlichen Verlauf der Erkrankung sind begrenzt, sodass es derzeit nicht möglich ist, individuell vorherzusagen, ob ein DCIS zu einem invasiven Karzinom fortschreiten wird oder nicht. Trotz dieser Einschränkung bilden heute pathomorphologische Parameter die wesentliche Grundlage für die Abschätzung der Prognose und Therapieplanung. Der Ausschluss eines invasiven Mammakarzinoms, die Bestimmung von Kerngrad, Architektur, Größe und Verteilungsmuster des DCIS sowie der Nachweis von Nekrosen und die Erhebung des Resektionsrandstatus einschließlich der Sicherheitsabstände sind entscheidend für das lokale Vorgehen. Die Bestimmung des Hormonrezeptorstatus ist bei Patientinnen angezeigt, bei denen eine Tamoxifenbehandlung nach brusterhaltender Therapie erwogen wird. Dabei empfiehlt sich die sorgfältige Beurteilung der genannten Parameter in Anlehnung an international akzeptierte Vorgaben, deren prognostische Relevanz und diagnostische Reproduzierbarkeit belegt ist. Dennoch sind bessere Prognosemarker erforderlich, um Patientinnen mit dieser zunehmend häufiger diagnostizierten Erkrankung zukünftig eine individuell angepasste Behandlung anbieten zu können.

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a heterogeneous disease that progresses to invasive cancer in 30–50% of the patients. Its natural history is poorly defined so that we are unable to identify cases of DCIS that do not progress to invasive carcinoma during an individual’s lifetime. However, pathologic features of DCIS are nowadays the basis for the estimation of the prognosis and planning of therapy. Exclusion of microinvasion, characterization of nuclear grade, architecture, size and distribution of the DCIS, presence or absence of comedonecrosis as well as the assessment of surgical margins are relevant factors for local treatment. The determination of steroid hormone receptor status is indicated in patients considering tamoxifen therapy after breast conservation. It is advisable to evaluate the features according to internationally accepted guidelines with proven prognostic relevance and reproducibility. Nevertheless, better prognostic factors are needed to adapt the management of this increasingly diagnosed disease to the individual patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. 1.

    Allred DC, 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 [Suppl 1]: S36

  2. 2.

    Badve S, A’Hern RP, Ward AM et al. (1998) Prediction of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five histological classifications: a comparative study with long follow-up. Hum Pathol 29: 915–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bässler R (1997) Mamma. In: Remmele W (Hrsg) Pathologie, Bd 4. Springe, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, S

  4. 4.

    Bellamy CO, McDonald C, Salter DM et al. (1993) Noninvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: the relevance of histologic categorization. Hum Pathol 24: 16–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Betsill WL Jr, Rosen PP, Lieberman PH, Robbins GF (1978) Intraductal carcinoma. Long-term follow-up after treatment by biopsy alone. JAMA 239: 1863–1867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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: 2263–2271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Blamey RW, Macmillan RD, Rampaul RS et al. (2002) Ductal carcinoma in situ: experience at Nottingham City Hospital 1973 through 2000. In: Silverstein MJ (ed) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 322–328

  8. 8.

    Bloom HJ, Richardson WW (1957) Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer, a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer 11: 359–377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Buerger H, Mommers EC, Littmann R et al. (2001) Ductal invasive G2 and G3 carcinomas of the breast are the end stages of at least two different lines of genetic evolution. J Pathol 194: 165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chang JC, Wooten EC, Tsimelzon A et al. (2003) Gene expression profiling for the prediction of therapeutic response to docetaxel in patients with breast cancer. Lancet 362: 362–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Cheng L, Al Kaisi NK, Gordon NH et al. (1997) Relationship between the size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and residual disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 1356–1360

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Consensus Conference Committee (1997) Consensus Conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 80: 1798–1802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    De Mascarel I, MacGrogan G, Mathoulin-Pelissier S et al. (2002) Breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: a definition supported by a long-term study of 1248 serially sectioned ductal carcinomas. Cancer 94: 2134–2142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dean L, Geschickter CF (1938) Comedo carcinoma of the breast. Arch Surg 36: 225–234

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Douglas-Jones AG, Gupta SK, Attanoos RL et al. (1996) A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): correlation with grade of associated invasive carcinoma. Histopathology 29: 397–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    EC Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology (2001) Quality assurance guidelines for pathology in mammography screening – non-operative diagnosis. In: Perry N, Broders M, de Wolf C et al. J (eds) European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 159–172

  17. 17.

    Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19: 403–410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Engel J, Schubert-Fritschle G, Hölzel D (2001) Epidemiologie. In: Sauer H (Hrsg) Manual Mammakarzinome: Empfehlungen zur Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge. Zuckschwerdt, München, S 1–8

  19. 19.

    Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE et al. (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94: 1546–1554

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Eusebi V, Feudale E, Foschini MP et al. (1994) Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol 11: 223–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Evans AJ, Pinder S, Ellis IO et al. (1994) Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features with pathologic correlation. Radiology 191: 237–240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Farrow JH (1970) Current concepts in the detection and treatment of the earliest of the early breast cancers. Cancer 25: 468–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Faverly DR, Burgers L, Bult P, Holland R (1994) Three dimensional imaging of mammary ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical implications. Semin Diagn Pathol 11: 193–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E et al. (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: 400–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    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: 429–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Frykberg ER, Bland KI (1994) Overview of the biology and management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 74: 350–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Haagensen CD, Lane N, Lattes R (1972) Neoplastic proliferation of the epithelium of the mammary lobules: adenosis, lobular neoplasia, and small cell carcinoma. Surg Clin North Am 52: 497–524

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR et al. (1994) Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 11: 167–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kraus FT, Neubecker RD (1962) The differential diagnosis of papillary tumors of the breast. Cancer 15: 444–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kreienberg R, Kopp I, Lorenz W et al. (2004) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik und Therapie des Mammakarzinoms der Frau. Zuckschwerdt, München

  32. 32.

    Lagios MD (1990) Duct carcinoma in situ. Pathology and treatment. Surg Clin North Am 70: 853–871

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lagios MD (1992) Pathologic features related to local recurrence following lumpectomy and irradiation. Semin Surg Oncol 8: 122–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lagios MD (2002) Practical pathology of duct carcinoma in situ: how to derive optimal data from the pathologic examination. In: Silverstein MJ (ed) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 207–221

  35. 35.

    Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, Rose MR (1989) Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer 63: 618–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lakhani SR (1999) The transition from hyperplasia to invasive carcinoma of the breast. J Pathol 187: 272–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Lebeau A, Böcker W, Bürrig KF et al. (2003 a) Anleitung Mammapathologie. In: Schulz KD, Albert US (Hrsg) Stufe-3-Leitlinie Brustkrebsfrüherkennung in Deutschland. Zuckschwerdt, München, S 179–204

  38. 38.

    Lebeau A, Unholzer A, Amann G et al. (2003 b) EGFR, HER-2/neu, cyclin D1, p21 and p53 in correlation to cell proliferation and steroid hormone receptor status in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 79: 187–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lennington WJ, Jensen RA, Dalton LW, Page DL (1994) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Heterogeneity of individual lesions. Cancer 73: 118–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Leonard GD, Swain SM (2004) Ductal carcinoma in situ, complexities and challenges. J Natl Cancer Inst 96: 906–920

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ma XJ, Salunga R, Tuggle JT et al. (2003) Gene expression profiles of human breast cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 5974–5979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Millis RR, Thynne GS (1975) In situ intraduct carcinoma of the breast: a long term follow-up study. Br J Surg 62: 957–962

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Molloy M, Azarow K, Garcia VF, Daniel JR (1989) Enhanced detection of preinvasive breast cancer: combined role of mammography and needle localization biopsy. J Surg Oncol 40: 152–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Mommers EC, Poulin N, Sangulin J et al. (2001) Nuclear cytometric changes in breast carcinogenesis. J Pathol 193: 33–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology (1995) Pathology reporting in breast screening. Breast Screening Publications, Sheffield

  46. 46.

    NHSBSP, Guidelines Working Group of the National Coordinating Committee for Breast Pathology (2005) Pathology reporting of breast disease. NHS Screening Programmes and The Royal College of Pathologists. NHSBSP Publication No. 58, Sheffield

  47. 47.

    Ottesen GL, Graversen HP, Blichert-Toft M et al. (1992) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the female breast. Short-term results of a prospective nationwide study. The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Am J Surg Pathol 16: 1183–1196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Padmore RF, Fowble B, Hoffman J et al. (2000) Microinvasive breast carcinoma: clinicopathologic analysis of a single institution experience. Cancer 88: 1403–1409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Page DL, Lagios MD (1995) Pathologic analysis of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) B-17 Trial. Unanswered questions remaining unanswered considering current concepts of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 75: 1219–1222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Page DL, Rogers LW (1992) Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 23: 1095–1097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW et al. (1995) 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 76: 1197–1200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al. (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351: 2817–2826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Poller DN, Silverstein MJ, Galea M et al. (1994) Ideas in pathology. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a proposal for a new simplified histological classification association between cellular proliferation and c-erbB-2 protein expression. Mod Pathol 7: 257–262

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Porter D, Lahti-Domenici J, Keshaviah A et al. (2003) Molecular markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Mol Cancer Res 1: 362–375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ravdin PM (2002) Prognostic factors in ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein MJ (ed) Ductal carcinoma in situ of breast. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 49–53

  56. 56.

    Rosai J (1991) Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 15: 209–221

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Page DL (2005) The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 103: 2481–2484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Schnitt SJ (1998) Microinvasive carcinoma of the breast: a diagnosis in search of a definition. Adv Anat Pathol 5: 367–372

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA et al. (1992) Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 16: 1133–1143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Silver SA, Tavassoli FA (1998) Mammary ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Cancer 82: 2382–2390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Silverstein MJ (2003) The University of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg 186: 337–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Silverstein MJ, Buchanan C (2003) Ductal carcinoma in situ: USC/Van Nuys Prognostic Index and the impact of margin status. Breast 12: 457–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD (2002) Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. In: Silverstein MJ (ed) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Lippincott Williams& Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 523–529

  64. 64.

    Silverstein MJ, Waisman JR, Gamagami P et al. (1990) Intraductal carcinoma of the breast (208 cases). Clinical factors influencing treatment choice. Cancer 66: 102–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR et al. (1995) Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet 345: 1154–1157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH et al. (1996) A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast [see comments]. Cancer 77: 2267–2274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Silverstein 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: 1455–1461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, Lakhani SR (2005) Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol 205: 248–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Singletary SE (2002) Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 184: 383–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Sloane JP (2001) Biopsy pathology of the breast. Arnold, London

  71. 71.

    Sloane JP, Ellman R, Anderson TJ et al. (1994) Consistency of histopathological reporting of breast lesions detected by screening: findings of the U.K. National External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme. U.K. National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology. Eur J Cancer 30A: 1414–1419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Stratton MR, Collins N, Lakhani SR, Sloane JP (1995) Loss of heterozygosity in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Pathol 175: 195–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    UICC (2002) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley-Liss, New York

  74. 74.

    Van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ et al. (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347: 1999–2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Warnberg F, Nordgren H, Bergkvist L, Holmberg L (2001) Tumour markers in breast carcinoma correlate with grade rather than with invasiveness. Br J Cancer 85: 869–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Warnberg F, Casalini P, Nordgren H et al. (2002) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a new phenotype classification system and its relation to prognosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 73: 215–221

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Wellings SR, Jensen HM (1973) On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 50: 1111–1118

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Wells WA (2002) The diagnostic reproducibility of ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein MJ (ed) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 264–272

  79. 79.

    WHO/Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds) (2003) World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. IARC, Lyon, pp 9–112

  80. 79a.

    Wong JS, Kaelin CM, Troyan SL et al. (2006) Prospective study of wide excision alone for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol 24: 1031–1036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 80.

    Zafrani B, Leroyer A, Fourquet A et al. (1994) Mammographically-detected ductal in situ carcinoma of the breast analyzed with a new classification. A study of 127 cases: correlation with estrogen and progesterone receptors, p53 and c-erbB-2 proteins, and proliferative activity. Semin Diagn Pathol 11: 208–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Lebeau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lebeau, A. Prognostische Faktoren beim duktalen Carcinoma in situ. Pathologe 27, 326–336 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-006-0853-y

Download citation

Schlüsselwörter

  • Duktales Carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
  • Mammakarzinom
  • Mikroinvasion
  • Pseudoinvasion

Keywords

  • Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
  • Breast cancer
  • Microinvasion
  • Pseudoinvasion