Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 158, Issue 1, pp 179–187 | Cite as

Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ according to breast cancer subtypes: a population-based cohort study

  • Shusma C. DoebarEmail author
  • Esther C. van den Broek
  • Linetta B. Koppert
  • Agnes Jager
  • Margreet. H. A. Baaijens
  • Inge-Marie A. M. Obdeijn
  • Carolien H. M. van Deurzen
Open Access
Epidemiology

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a precursor of invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). The DCIS component is often more extensive than the invasive component, which affects local control. The aim of our study was to analyze features of DCIS within different IBC subtypes, which may contribute to the optimization of personalized approaches for patients with IBC. Patients with IBC reported according to the synoptic reporting module in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2015 were included. Data extraction included characteristics of the invasive component and, if present, several features of the DCIS component. Resection margin status analyses were restricted to patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Differences between subtypes were tested by a Chi-square test, spearman’s Rho test or a one-way ANOVA test. Overall, 36.937 cases of IBC were included. About half of the IBCs (n = 16.014; 43.4 %) were associated with DCIS. Her2+ IBC (irrespective of ER status) was associated with a higher prevalence of adjacent DCIS, a larger extent of DCIS and a higher rate of irradicality of the DCIS component as compared to ER+/Her2− and triple-negative subtypes (P < 0.0001 for all variables). The prevalence of DCIS in triple-negative IBC on the other hand was lowest. In this large population-based cohort study, we showed significant differences between the prevalence and extent of DCIS according to IBC subtypes, which is also reflected in the resection margin status in patients treated with BCS. Our data provide important information regarding the optimization of local therapy according to IBC subtypes.

Keywords

Breast cancer subtypes Ductal carcinoma in situ Prevalence 

Introduction

Invasive breast cancer (IBC) is a heterogeneous disease which can be categorized into several histologic or intrinsic subtypes that differ in their biological behavior and clinical outcome [1, 2, 3]. Intrinsic subtypes are most precisely categorized based on multigene expression assays, although each subtype has an immunohistochemical surrogate based on ER, PR, Her2, and Ki-67 index [4, 5, 6, 7]. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is seen as a nonobligate precursor of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In the last decades, the detection rate of DCIS increased markedly in the age group of 50–75 years, as a result of the increased use and improved resolution of mammographic mass screening [8, 9]. Synchronous DCIS and adjacent IDC show a high degree of concordance regarding morphology and genetic profiles [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. The concordance of receptor expression of ER, PR, and Her2 in DCIS and coexisting IDC is high, with 92 % for ER, 93–97 % for PR, and about 98–100 % for Her2 [10, 11, 12].

Data regarding the process of progression of DCIS to IBC is limited. Several studies reported frequencies of pure DCIS subtypes based on immunohistochemical surrogates originally described for IBC [5, 13, 14, 16]. In these pure DCIS studies, the distribution of subtypes differs from studies including IBC. In pure DCIS studies, frequencies of Her2−positive subtypes are higher as compared to reported frequencies in IBC; about 15–32 % of pure DCIS cases are Her2 positive, while this frequency is lower in IBC, about 6–14 % [5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18]. Reported frequencies of triple-negative pure DCIS on the other hand are lower than reported frequencies in IBC, 6–8 % in pure DCIS versus 11–13 % in IBC [5, 13, 14, 16, 17]. Regarding the Luminal A and Luminal B subgroups, the reported frequencies for pure DCIS and IBC are overlapping (38–63 % in pure DCIS versus 38–73 % in IBC for luminal A and 7–28 % in pure DCIS versus 5–26 % in IBC for luminal B) [5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19]. Based on these prevalences, a mathematical, hypothetical model has been built, suggesting different speeds of progression according to breast cancer subtypes [20]. This model suggests that Her2+ DCIS has the slowest progression to IBC, while triple-negative DCIS has the fastest progression.

Since the last decades, the proportion of patients undergoing mastectomy decreased and the majority of patients with localized DCIS are treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS), followed by breast irradiation [21]. Overall, the local recurrence rate (LRR) for patients with DCIS treated with BCS followed by breast irradiation is about 10–17 % within the first 15 years after treatment, of which 50 % concerns IBC [22, 23, 24]. Recent studies reported that DCIS subtype was an independent predictor for ipsilateral recurrence after treatment by breast surgery alone (BCS or mastectomy) or breast surgery followed by breast irradiation [25, 26, 27, 28]. The overall LRR in patients with pure DCIS was the highest in Her2-positive and luminal B subgroups (10–48 % and 25–42 % recurring within 10 years of follow-up, respectively) and the lowest in the luminal A subgroup (9–21 %) [25, 26, 27]. Regarding triple-negative DCIS, no firm conclusion could be drawn from the reported LRRs due to limited numbers of patients. Nevertheless, based on LRRs per subtype, Her2-positive DCIS seems to have an increased risk for LR after breast surgery as compared to Her2-negative DCIS. In line with this, the highest LRR was also observed for Her2−positive IBC following breast surgery and irradiation (LRR of 8–21 % within 10 years of follow-up), as compared to Luminal A and Luminal B type IBC (LRR 1–8 % and 2–10 % respectively) [29, 30, 31]. These data suggest that adjustment of current treatment guidelines according to breast cancer subtypes, e.g., aggressive local therapy restricted to patients with a high LRR, could result in reduction of complications and costs for low risk patients.

Subtyping of DCIS has the potential to study progression-related features and to identify patients at high risk for LR. However, in daily practice, pure DCIS cases are not routinely analyzed for ER, PR and Her2 status, which limits the opportunity for large-scale retrospective studies. Patients with IBC on the other hand are routinely studied for ER, PR, and Her2 status. This provides the opportunity to indirectly assess adjacent DCIS features, which, as mentioned above, share receptor expression pattern in the vast majority of cases. The aim of this study was to analyze features of DCIS within different IBC subtypes, including the resection margin status in patients treated with BCS, which may contribute to the optimization of personalized approaches for patients with IBC.

Patients and methods

Data acquisition

In the Netherlands, all pathology reports are archived in the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) [32]. Since 2009, synoptic reporting modules for reporting several common tumor types including breast cancer became available. In these modules, the parameters are captured in numerous variables instead of free text fields. This offers the unique opportunity to analyze all reports created with the module simultaneously.

Patient and tumor characteristics

For this study, we included all patients with IBC reported according to the protocol module in the Netherlands between January 1, 2009 and September 1, 2015 (n = 36.937 cases). Patients with missing ER, PR, and/or Her2 status; pure DCIS; and patients with IBC after previous treatment (irradical resection, neoadjuvant therapy) were excluded. Patients with bilateral IBC were included as two cases. In case of multiple IBCs in one breast, the largest IBC was included for analysis of tumor characteristics, except for resection margin status, which was assessed for all tumors.

Clinicopathologic characteristics included age, type of surgical procedure (BCS or mastectomy), tumor size (≤2 cm, >2 to ≤5 cm or >5 cm), histological type (according to WHO), grade (according to the modified Bloom and Richardson grading system) [33], ER status, PR status, Her2 status, presence of angioinvasion, presence of DCIS, and nodal status. ER status and PR status were defined as positive in case more than 10 % of the cancer cells that showed nuclear staining, irrespective of density, according to the Dutch Guideline for breast cancer treatment [34]. Her2 status was scored according to the international guidelines [35]. Based on immunohistochemistry, tumors were divided according to the surrogate definitions of intrinsic subtypes as reported in the St Gallen International Expert Consensus 2013 [36]. Low PR expression was defined as ≤20 % [37]. However, the absence of information regarding Ki-67 indexes in our dataset limited the ability to differentiate between Luminal A and Luminal B (Her2−) subtypes, so based on the available information, our cases were subtyped according to the following 5 categories:
  1. 1.

    ER+/PR high/Her2−,

     
  2. 2.

    ER+/PR− or low/Her2−,

     
  3. 3.

    ER+/Her2+,

     
  4. 4.

    ER−/PR−/Her2+, and

     
  5. 5.

    ER−/PR−/Her2−.

     

In case DCIS was present, the following features were documented: relation to the invasive component (restricted to invasive component or not), diameter, nuclear grade, and presence of microcalcifications [38]. The overall resection margin status was reported, as well as the margin for both the invasive component and the DCIS component as either free, focally irradical, or more than focally irradical, according to the Dutch Guideline for Breast Cancer Treatment [34]. Focally irradical is defined as tumor (either invasive or DCIS) reaching the ink in a small area (≤4 mm). In case the tumor (either invasive or DCIS) reaches the ink in a larger area or multiple smaller areas, it is defined as more than focally irradical. This distinction has important clinical consequences in the Netherlands, since patients with a focally positive resection margin of IBC or adjacent DCIS do not undergo second surgery (since radiation with a boost dose results in adequate local control), while patients with a more than focally positive resection margin undergo reexcision, according to the Dutch Guideline for Breast Cancer Treatment 2002 [39]. However, these definitions are not applied in most other European and North American countries [40]. Therefore, in this study, we use the term irradicality to describe either focally or more than focally irradical resection margins.

Statistical analysis

Differences between IBC subtypes were tested by means of a Chi-square test (categorical variables) or a one-way ANOVA (continuous variables). Missing values are included in the tables but excluded in the analyses.

Furthermore, the correlation between grade of the invasive component and the DCIS component was tested with Chi-square. The correlation between the extent of the DCIS component and resection margin status of the DCIS component was tested with a spearman’s correlation coefficient. All analyses were performed with SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1.

Results

Baseline characteristics

Overall, we included 36.937 consecutive cases of IBC reported between January 1, 2009 and September 1, 2015. The median age of our patient cohort was 62 years (range 18–100). The majority of patients (60.4 %) underwent BCS. Table 1 provides an overview of clinicopathologic data of all patients. About half of the IBCs (n = 16.014; 43.4 %) were associated with DCIS, either restricted within or outside the invasive component (45.3 and 54.7 %, respectively).
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of all patients with IBC (n = 36937)

Characteristic

N

(%)

Age at diagnosis, years, mean, median (range)

Mean: 61.0

Median: 62.0 (18–100)

 

Type of surgery

 Breast-conserving surgery

22,328

60.45

 Mastectomy

14,609

39.55

Histologic tumor type

 Ductal

29,630

80.22

 Lobular

4703

12.73

 Other

2604

7.05

Tumor size

 ≤2 cm

24,359

65.95

 >2 to ≤5 cm

11,117

30.10

 >5 cm

1461

3.96

Tumor grade

 1

8622

27.13

 2

14,894

46.86

 3

8266

26.01

 Missing

5155

ER status

 Positive

31,662

85.72

 Negative

5275

14.28

PR status

 Positive

25,400

68.77

 Negative

11,487

31.10

Her2 status

 Positive

4140

11.21

 Negative

32,797

88.79

Multiple invasive tumors

 Yes

2650

8.63

 No

28,051

91.37

 Missing

6236

 

Angioinvasion

 Yes

3715

14.03

 No

22,773

85.97

 Missing

10,449

Presence of DCIS component

 Yes

16,014

43.35

 No

20,923

56.65

Overall resection margin status (invasive component and/or DCIS component)a

 Free

18,552

83.09

 Focally irradical

2286

10.24

 More than focally irradical

1490

6.67

Resection margin status of invasive component onlya

 Free

19,755

88.48

 Focally irradical

1621

7.26

 More than focally irradical

952

4.26

Nodal status

 Negative

11,428

60.22

 Positive

7550

39.78

 Missing

17,959

aAnalysis restricted to patients with BCS (n = 22328)

Table 2 provides details of all patients with IBC and adjacent DCIS. Overall, there was a strong correlation between grade of the DCIS component and grade of the invasive component (p < 0.0001, Chi-square test). Both the extent of DCIS and DCIS extending beyond the invasive component correlated with irradicality of the DCIS component (spearman’s rho = 0.3, p < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, Chi-square test, respectively). The frequency of multiple IBCs was significantly higher in IBC cases with adjacent DCIS (10.2 %) as compared to IBC cases without adjacent DCIS (7.4 %) (p < 0.0001, Chi-square test).
Table 2

DCIS characteristics of all patients with IBC and adjacent DCIS (n = 16014)

Characteristic

N

(%)

DCIS grade

 1

2598

16.33

 2

7896

49.64

 3

5414

34.03

 Missing

106

DCIS restricted to invasive component

 Yes

4452

45.29

 No

5377

54.71

 Missing

6185

Diameter of DCIS, cm, mean, median (range)

Mean: 2.08

Median: 1.50 (0–20)

Presence of DCIS-associated microcalcifications

 Yes

4400

49.97

 No

4406

50.03

 Missing

7208

Resection margin status of DCIS component onlya

 Free

8323

83.67

 Focally irradical

1168

11.74

 More than focally irradical

456

4.58

 Missing

34

 

aAnalysis restricted to patients with BCS (n = 9981)

Clinicopathologic features according to breast cancer subtypes

Based on immunohistochemical stainings, IBCs were categorized into the following 5 categories: ER+/PR high/Her2− (n = 21315; 57.7 %), ER+/PR− or low/Her2− (n = 7541; 20.4 %), ER+/Her2+ (n = 2806; 7.6 %), ER−/PR−/Her2+ (n = 1334; 3.6 %), or ER−/PR−/Her2− (n = 3941; 10.7 %). Table 3 provides an overview of patient and tumor characteristics according to different IBC subtypes.
Table 3

Clinicopathologic characteristics according to different subtypes of IBC (n = 36937)

Characteristic

ER+, PR high, Her2−

(n = 21315)

ER+, PR− or low

Her2−

(n = 7541)

ER+, Any PR,

Her2+

(n = 2806)

ER−, PR−,

Her2+

(n = 1334)

ER−, PR−,

Her2−

(n = 3941)

P-value

Age at diagnosis, years, mean, median and range

Mean: 61.1

Median: 62

Range: 18–99

Mean: 63.4

Median: 64

Range: 21–97

Mean: 57.6

Median: 57

Range: 19–100

Mean: 59.3

Median: 59 Range: 24–97

Mean: 59.0;

Median: 59

Range: 22–98

<0.0001

Type of surgery, no (%)

<0.0001

 Breast-conserving surgery

13,507

63.37

4476

59.36

1514

53.96

599

44.90

2232

56.64

 Mastectomy

7808

36.63

3065

40.64

1292

46.04

735

55.10

1709

43.36

Tumor type, no (%)

<0.0001

 Ductal

16,695

78.33

5753

76.29

2548

90.81

1255

94.08

3379

85.74

 Lobular

3130

14.68

1319

17.49

147

5.24

20

1.50

87

2.21

 Other

1490

6.99

469

6.22

111

3.96

59

4.42

475

12.05

Tumor size, no (%)

<0.0001

 ≤2 cm

14,849

69.66

4931

65.39

1719

61.26

729

54.65

2131

54.07

 >2 to ≤5 cm

5771

27.07

2267

30.06

964

34.35

528

39.58

1587

40.27

 >5 cm

695

3.26

343

4.55

123

4.38

77

5.77

223

5.66

Tumor grade, no (%)

<0.0001

 1

6513

35.17

1786

27.41

203

8.63

29

2.62

91

2.77

 2

9559

51.62

3379

51.86

1018

43.28

273

24.66

665

20.21

 3

2445

13.20

1351

20.73

1131

48.09

805

72.72

2534

77.02

 Missing

2798

1025

454

227

651

Multiple invasive tumors, no (%)

<0.0001

 Yes

1624

9.02

510

8.25

216

9.45

106

9.97

194

5.97

 No

16,296

90.94

5671

91.75

2070

90.55

957

90.03

3057

94.03

 Missing

3395

1360

520

271

690

Angioinvasion, no (%)

<0.0001

 Yes

1734

11.20

727

13.46

427

21.72

267

29.28

560

20.52

 No

13,747

88.80

4673

86.54

1539

78.28

645

70.72

2169

79.48

 Missing

5834

2141

840

422

1212

Overall resection margin status (invasive and/or DCIS component)a

<0.0001

 Free

11,243

83.24

3676

82.13

1205

79.59

459

76.63

1969

88.22

 Focally irradical

1366

10.11

492

10.99

178

11.76

92

15.36

158

7.08

 More than focally irradical

898

6.65

308

6.88

131

8.65

48

8.01

105

4.70

Resection margin status of invasive componenta, no (%)

<0.0001

 Free

11,879

87.95

3910

87.35

1344

88.77

540

90.15

2082

93.28

 Focally irradical

1028

7.61

356

7.95

112

7.40

41

6.84

84

3.76

 More than focally irradical

600

4.44

210

4.69

58

3.83

18

3.01

66

2.96

Nodal status, no (%)

<0.0001

 Negative

6717

62.17

2293

59.19

774

53.20

359

47.61

1285

61.45

 Positive

4087

37.83

1581

40.81

681

46.80

395

52.39

806

38.55

 Missing

10,511

3667

1351

580

1850

aAnalysis restricted to patients with BCS (n = 22328)

Overall, regarding the invasive component, the ER−/Her2+ and triple-negative subgroups showed the most aggressive biological features. The ER+/Her2− subgroups showed the most favorable biological features while the ER+/Her2+ subgroup showed intermediate results. Regarding the ER+/Her2− subgroups, the presence of a high PR expression was associated with more favorable tumor characteristics as compared to those cases with absence or low PR expression.

In general, patients with Her2+ (irrespective of ER status) and triple-negative IBC were younger as compared to patients with ER+/Her2− IBC (P < 0.0001). Besides, median tumor size of these subtypes was larger (P < 0.0001), which was in line with the higher proportion of patients undergoing a mastectomy (P < 0.0001). Histologically, these tumors were more often of ductal type (p < 0.0001) and of higher grade (P < 0.0001). The frequency of angioinvasion and nodal involvement was highest in the ER−/Her2+ subgroup (P < 0.0001).

There was a strong correlation between the presence of DCIS and breast cancer subtype (P < 0.0001). Table 4 provides an overview of all DCIS characteristics according to different subtypes of IBC. DCIS was most often present adjacent to IBCs with overexpression of Her2 (irrespective of ER status) with a frequency of 59.1 % in the ER+/Her2+ subgroup and 57.4 % in the ER−/Her2+ subgroup. The frequency of a DCIS component was lowest in the triple-negative subgroup (34.1 %).
Table 4

DCIS characteristics according to different subtypes of IBC (n = 16014)

Characteristic

ER+, PR high, Her2−

(n = 21315)

ER+, PR− or low

Her2−

(n = 7541)

ER+, Any PR,

Her2+

(n = 2806)

ER−, PR−,

Her2+

(n = 1334)

ER−, PR−,

Her2−

(n = 3941)

P-value

Presence of DCIS, no (%)

<0.0001

 Yes

9168

43.01

3078

40.82

1658

59.09

766

57.42

1344

34.10

 No

12,147

56.99

4463

59.18

1148

40.91

568

42.58

2597

65.90

DCIS grade, no (%)

<0.0001

 1

1983

21.77

512

16.72

61

3.70

4

0.53

38

2.86

 2

5310

58.32

1613

52.66

572

34.73

106

13.93

294

21.11

 3

1813

19.91

938

30.62

1014

61.57

651

85.55

998

75.04

 Missing

61

15

11

5

14

Presence of DCIS-associated microcalcifications, no (%)

<0.0001

 Yes

2464

48.21

876

52.02

512

59.26

240

60.91

308

40.90

 No

2647

51.79

808

47.98

352

40.74

154

39.09

445

59.10

 Missing

4057

1394

794

372

591

DCIS restricted to invasive component, no (%)

<0.0001

 Yes

2774

48.52

823

43.82

383

39.24

127

29.13

345

41.97

 No

2943

51.48

1055

56.18

593

60.76

309

70.87

477

58.03

 Missing

3451

1200

682

330

522

Diameter of DCIS, cm, mean, median and range

Mean: 1.9; Median: 1.4 Range: 0–20

Mean: 1.9; Median: 1.4 Range: 0–19

Mean: 2.6; Median: 2.0 Range: 0–20

Mean: 3.2; Median: 2.3 Range: 0–20

Mean: 2.1; Median: 1.5 Range: 0–15

<0.0001

Resection margin status of DCIS componenta

 

 Free

5103

85.33

1622

83.44

707

78.82

251

71.10

640

82.79

<0.0001

 Focally  irradical

640

10.70

245

12.60

127

14.16

73

20.68

83

10.74

 More than  focally  irradical

237

3.96

77

3.96

63

7.02

29

8.22

50

6.47

 Missing

22

5

2

0

5

aAnalysis restricted to patients with BCS and presence of DCIS

Besides a higher prevalence of DCIS in the Her2+ groups, DCIS was more often located outside the invasive component and the DCIS component was more extensive (P < 0.0001 for all variables). DCIS-associated microcalcifications were most often seen adjacent to Her2+ IBC, while the frequency was lowest in the triple-negative group (p < 0.0001).

Analysis of resection margin status was restricted to patients treated with BCS. Overall, the frequency of irradicality (of either the invasive or the DCIS component) was highest in the Her2+ subgroups and lowest in the triple-negative subgroup (P < 0.0001). Analysis of irradicality of the invasive component separately showed the highest frequency of irradicality in the ER+/Her2− subgroups and the lowest in the triple-negative subgroup (P < 0.0001). Analysis of irradicality of the DCIS component however showed another distribution as compared to the irradicality of the invasive component; the frequency of irradicality of the DCIS component was highest in the Her2+ subgroups (P < 0.0001).

Discussion

Our national registration system for pathology reporting provided a unique opportunity for this large-scale population-wide cohort study describing the presence and extent of DCIS according to breast cancer subtypes, in relation to other clinicopathologic features.

In our study, we showed substantial differences between immunohistochemical breast cancer subtypes regarding age, type of surgery, histology, tumor grade, and tumor size, which is consistent with literature [41, 42]. Briefly, Her2+ and triple-negative tumors are associated with younger age, larger size, and higher grade compared to luminal subtypes. However, on the other side of the spectrum, ER+/Her2− IBC showed the most favorable tumor characteristics, especially in the case of a high PR expression. This is in line with recent work of Prat et al. in which they concluded that the addition of a PR expression of more than 20 % adds prognostic value within the current immunohistochemical-based luminal A definition by improving the identification of IBCs with a good prognosis [37]. The ER+/Her2+ group seems to be an intermediate subgroup.

Regarding DCIS, we showed that Her2+ IBC is associated with a higher prevalence of adjacent DCIS and a larger extent of DCIS as compared to other IBC subtypes. In line with this, we reported a relatively high rate of irradicality of the DCIS component in Her2+ IBC. These findings are consistent with previous studies reporting a relatively high rate of Her2 positivity in pure DCIS cases, presence of extensive DCIS adjacent to Her2+ IBC, and a high LRR after BCS for Her2+ IBC [13, 29, 30, 42, 43]. Since the risk of an irradical resection is higher for IBCs that are associated with an extensive DCIS component as compared to those with a limited in situ component [41, 44], it seems likely that the DCIS component adjacent to Her2+ IBC is responsible for the high LRR. Therefore, preoperative knowledge regarding the extent of DCIS according to breast cancer subtypes may result in adjustment of local therapy and consequently local control. This may reduce undertreatment in those patients with a large DCIS component, including fewer secondary surgeries and local recurrences. On the other hand, it may result in less overtreatment in those patients with a low prevalence and/or limited extent of DCIS, e.g., by reduction of excision volume which affects cosmetic outcome. In recent years, there is an increased number of pathology laboratories performing the ER, PR, and Her2 status on preoperative needle biopsies on a routine basis, mainly as a result of the increased use of neoadjuvant treatment, which provides a better understanding of tumor growth patterns preoperatively. The presence of DCIS-associated microcalcifications adjacent to the majority of Her2+ IBCs, as shown in this study, may provide important preoperative information regarding imaging by mammography. Besides, since the DCIS component adjacent to Her2+ IBCs is mainly of high grade, a preoperative MRI could be beneficial for these patients, particularly for those without microcalcifications, since this imaging technique is considered to be the most sensitive modality in detecting the presence and extent of intermediate- and high-grade DCIS [45, 46].

According to our knowledge, our study includes the largest series of patients ever published regarding the presence and extent of DCIS adjacent to breast cancer subtypes, thanks to our national protocolled registration of breast cancer pathology reports. However, our study also has several weaknesses including the missing data regarding receptor expression of the DCIS component. However, since several studies reported a very high concordance (90–100 %) of ER, PR, and Her2 expression between DCIS and adjacent IBC, it is highly unlikely that this has affected our results. The second limitation is the lack of information regarding proliferation, because Ki-67 is not routinely performed in our pathology laboratories. This limited an accurate categorization of luminal A versus luminal B subtypes, which is partly based on a low versus a high Ki-67 index. A third limitation of our study is the lack of clinical follow-up regarding local control. In this study, we used data from 2009 (in this year we started registering according to standard pathology protocols) until 2015, resulting in inadequate follow-up time.

In conclusion, in this large population-based cohort study, we showed significant differences between the prevalence and extent of DCIS according to breast cancer subtypes. Her2+ IBC was associated with the highest prevalence and extent of DCIS, while on the other side of the spectrum, triple-negative IBC had the lowest prevalence of DCIS of all IBC subtypes. Since the extent of DCIS was also reflected in the resection margin status in patients treated with BCS, these data provide important information regarding the optimization of local therapy.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:10869–10874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Louwman MW, Vriezen M, van Beek MW et al (2007) Uncommon breast tumors in perspective: incidence, treatment and survival in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 121:127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen TO, Perou CM (2015) CCR 20th Anniversary Commentary: the Development of Breast Cancer Molecular Subtyping. Clin Cancer Res 21:1779–1781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ng CK, Schultheis AM, Bidard FC, Wiegelt B, Reis-Filho JS et al (2015) Breast cancer genomics from microarrays to massively parallel sequencing: paradigms and new insights. J Natl Cancer Inst 107:djv015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC et al (2009) Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 27:1160–1167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guedj M, Marisa L, de Reynies A et al (2012) A refined molecular taxonomy of breast cancer. Oncogene 31:1196–1206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Steenbergen LN, Voogd AC, Roukema JA et al (2009) Screening caused rising incidence rates of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 115:181–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Louwman WJ, Voogd AC, van Dijck JA et al (2008) On the rising trends of incidence and prognosis for breast cancer patients diagnosed 1975–2004: a long-term population-based study in southeastern Netherlands. Cancer Causes Control 19:97–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steinman S, Wang J, Bourne P, Yang Q, Tang P (2007) Expression of cytokeratin markers, ER-alpha, PR, HER-2/neu, and EGFR in pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with co-existing invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. Ann Clin Lab Sci 37:127–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park K, Han S, Kim H, Kim J, Shin E (2006) HER2 status in pure ductal carcinoma in situ and in the intraductal and invasive components of invasive ductal carcinoma determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Histopathology 48:702–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinman S, Wang J, Bourne P, Kim J, Shin E (2007) Expression of cytokeratin markers, ER-alpha, PR, HER-2/neu, and EGFR in pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with co-existing invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. Ann Clin Lab Sci 37:127–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meijnen P, Peterse JL, Antonini N, Rutgers EJ, van de Vijver MJ (2008) Immunohistochemical categorisation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Br J Cancer 98:137–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark SE, Warwick J, Carpenter R, Bowen RL, Duffy SW, Jones JL (2011) Molecular subtyping of DCIS: heterogeneity of breast cancer reflected in pre-invasive disease. Br J Cancer 104:120–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhou W, Jirström K, Amini RM et al (2013) Molecular subtypes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and their relation to prognosis: a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer 13:512CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Marotti J et al (2008) Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 10:R67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Su Y, Zheng Y, Zheng W et al (2011) Distinct distribution and prognostic significance of molecular subtypes of breast cancer in Chinese women: a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer 11:292CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 109:1721–1728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurbel S (2013) In search of triple-negative DCIS: tumor-type dependent model of breast cancer progression from DCIS to the invasive cancer. Tumour Biol 4:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Steenbergen LN, Voogd AC, Roukema JA et al (2014) Time trends and inter-hospital variation in treatment and axillary staging of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the era of screening in Southern Netherlands. Breast 23:63–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vidali C, Caffo O, Aristei C et al (2012) Conservative treatment of breast ductal carcinoma in situ: results of an Italian multi-institutional retrospective study. Radiat Oncol 7:177CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W et al (2012) HER2/neu and Ki-67 expression predict non-invasive recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer 13(106):1160–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Donker M, Litiere S, Werutsky G et al (2013) 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 31:4054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Han K, Nofech-Mozes S, Narod S et al (2012) Expression of HER2neu in ductal carcinoma in situ is associated with local recurrence. J Clin Oncol 24:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lazzeroni M, Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Botteri E et al (2013) Tailoring treatment for ductal intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast according to Ki-67 and molecular phenotype. Br J Cancer 108:1593–1601CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams KE, Barnes NLP, Cramer A et al (2015) Molecular phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence. Ann Oncol 26:1019–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Curigliano G, Disalvatore D, Esposito A et al (2015) Risk of subsequent in situ and invasive breast cancer in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Oncol 26:682–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Voduc KD, Cheang MC, Tyldesley S, Gelmon K, Nielsen TO, Kennecke H (2010) Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J Clin Oncol 28:1684–1691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nguyen PL, Taghian AG, Katz MS et al (2008) Breast cancer subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol 26:2373–2378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rezai M, Kellersmann S, Knispel S, Lax H, Kimmig R, Kern P (2015) Translating the concept of intrinsic subtypes into an oncoplastic cohort of more than 1000 patients—predictors of recurrence and survival. Breast 24:384–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G et al (2007) Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 29:19–24PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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 19:403–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    NABON (2012): Breast cancer guideline. http://www.richtlijnen-database.nl. Accessed 25 Apr 2016
  35. 35.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG et al (2013) American society of clinical oncology; college of American pathologists. recommendations for human epidermal growth factor 2 testing in breast cancer: american society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31:3997–4013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS et al (2013) Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 24:2206–2223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prat A, Cheang MC, Martín M et al (2013) Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal A breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:203–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nuclear dcis: the consensus conference committee (1997) Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma. Cancer 80:1798–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dutch Guideline for Breast Cancer Treatment (2002). http://www.oncoline.nl/uploaded/docs/mammacarcinoom/Dutch%20Breast%20Cancer%20Guideline%202012.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2016
  40. 40.
    Buchholz TA, Somerfield MR, Griggs JJ et al (2014) Margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: american Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol 32:1502–1506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jia H, Jia W, Yang Y et al (2014) HER-2 positive breast cancer is associated with an increased risk of positive cavity margins after initial lumpectomy. World J Surg Oncol 12:289CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parise CA, Bauer KR, Brown MM, Caggiano V (2009) Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999-2004. Breast J 15:593–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tot T (2015) Early (<10 mm) HER2-Positive Invasive Breast Carcinomas are Associated with Extensive Diffuse High-Grade DCIS: implications for Preoperative Mapping, Extent of Surgical Intervention, and Disease-Free Survival. Ann Surg Oncol 22:2532–2539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vicini FA, Eberlein TJ, Connolly JL et al (1991) The optimal extent of resection for patients with stages I or II breast cancer treated with conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Ann Surg 214:200–205CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Greenwood HI, Heller SL, Kim S, Sigmund EE, Shaylor SD, Moy L (2013) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: review of MR imaging features. Radiographics 33:1569–1588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M et al (2010) Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 30:1183–1198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shusma C. Doebar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Esther C. van den Broek
    • 2
  • Linetta B. Koppert
    • 3
  • Agnes Jager
    • 4
  • Margreet. H. A. Baaijens
    • 5
  • Inge-Marie A. M. Obdeijn
    • 6
  • Carolien H. M. van Deurzen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyErasmus MC Cancer InstituteRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Stichting PalgaHoutenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Oncological SurgeryErasmus MC Cancer InstituteRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Medical OncologyErasmus MC Cancer InstituteRotterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of RadiotherapyErasmus MC Cancer InstituteRotterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyErasmus MC Cancer InstituteRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations