Skip to main content

Low-grade screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ progresses more slowly than high-grade lesions: evidence from an international multi-centre study

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment volume 177, pages 761–765 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Nuclear grade is an important indicator of the biological behaviour of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). De-escalation of treatment has been suggested for low-grade DCIS. Our aim is to estimate the relative rate of progression of DCIS by nuclear grade by analysing the distribution of nuclear grade by detection at initial or subsequent screening.

Methods

We asked International Cancer Screening Network sites to complete, based on their screening and clinical databases, an aggregated data file on DCIS detection, diagnosis and treatment.

Results

Eleven screening programs reported 5068 screen-detected pure DCIS in nearly 7 million screening tests in women 50–69 years of age. For all programs combined, low-grade DCIS were 20.1% (range 11.4–31.8%) of graded DCIS, intermediate grade 31.0% and high grade 48.9%. Detection rates decreased more steeply from initial to subsequent screening in low compared to high-grade DCIS: the ratios of subsequent to initial detection rates were 0.39 for low grade, 0.51 for intermediate grade, and 0.75 for high grade (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the duration of the preclinical detectable phase is longer for low than for high-grade DCIS. The findings from this large multi-centre, international study emphasize that the management of low-grade DCIS should be carefully scrutinized in order to minimize overtreatment of screen-detected slow-growing or indolent lesions. The high variation by site in the proportion of low grade suggests that further pathology standardization and training would be beneficial.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D et al (2016) Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 17(1):109–114

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jacklyn G, Morrel S, McGeechan K et al (2018) Carcinoma in situ of the breast in New South Wales, Australia: current status and trends over the last 40 year. The Breast 37:170–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EAM, Fracheboud J et al (2016) The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 18:47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ozanne EM, Shieh Y, Barnes J et al (2011) Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:165–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nicholson S, Hanby A, Clements K et al (2015) Variations in the management of the axilla in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: evidence from the UK HHS Breast Screening Programme audit of screen detected DCIS. Eur J Surg Oncol 41:86–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mokbel K, Cutuli B (2006) Heterogeneity of ductal carcinoma in situ and its effects on management. Lancet 7:756–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wallis MG, Clements K, Kearins O et al (2012) The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time to recurrence after 15 years of follow-up of screen-detected DCIS. Br J Cancer 106:1611–1617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Onega T, Weaver DL, Frederick PD et al (2017) The diagnostic challenge of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Cancer 80:39–47

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Esserman L, Yau C (2015) Rethinking the standard for ductal carcinoma in situ treatment. JAMA Oncol 1(7):881–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gagliardi AR, Wright FC, Look Hong NJ et al (2019) National consensus recommendations on patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat 174:561–570

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Freeman J, Hutchinson GB (1980) Prevalence, incidence and duration. Am J Epidemiol 112:707–723

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Morrison AS (1985) Screening in chronic disease, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, p 38

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lynge E, Ponti A, James T et al (2014) Variation in the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) during screening mammography. A survey within the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN). Eur J Cancer 50(1):185–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ponti A, Lynge E, James T et al (2014) International variation in management of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer 50(15):2695–2704

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR et al (1994) Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 11(3):167–180

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weigel S, Khil L, Hense HW et al (2018) Detection rates of ductal carcinoma in situ with biennal digital mammography screening: radiologic findings support pathologic model of tumor progression. Radiology 286:424–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidinger O (2013) Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 271:38–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weigel S, Hense HW, Heidrich J et al (2016) Does age influence the detection rates of low, intermediate and high grade ductal carcinoma in situ? Radiology 278:707–713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S et al (2015) Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg 150(8):739–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Segnan N, Minozzi S, Armaroli P et al (2016) Epidemiologic evidence of slow growing, non-progressive or regressive breast cancer: a systematic review. Int J Cancer 139(3):554–573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Dooijeweert C, van Diest PJ, Willems SM et al (2019) Significant inter- and intra-laboratory variation in grading of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a nationwide study of 4901 patients in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 174(2):479–488

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the members of the ICSN DCIS Working group, the national and regional screening programs coordinators, and all professionals involved in breast cancer screening and treatment in participating centres for their contribution to this study.

Funding

No specific funding was made available for this study, but the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) provided co-ordination of the project and secretarial support. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official view of the NCI or the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Co-senior authors: Nereo Segnan and Stephen Taplin

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Via Cavour 31, 10123, Torino, Italy

    Antonio Ponti, Guglielmo Ronco, Mariano Tomatis & Nereo Segnan

  2. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Elsebeth Lynge

  3. Mass Screening Registry, Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland

    Ahti Anttila

  4. Breast Cancer Screening Program, Public Health and Labour Institute of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

    Nieves Ascunce

  5. Dutch Expert Centre for Screening and Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Mireille Broeders

  6. Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Jean-Luc Bulliard

  7. Unit of Pathology, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy

    Isabella Castellano

  8. National Screening Service, Dublin, Ireland

    Patricia Fitzpatrick

  9. Breast Cancer Screening Reference Centre, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy

    Alfonso Frigerio

  10. The Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway

    Solveig Hofvind

  11. Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

    Ondřej Májek

  12. Centre for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA

    Stephen Taplin

Authors
  1. Antonio Ponti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guglielmo Ronco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elsebeth Lynge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mariano Tomatis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ahti Anttila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nieves Ascunce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mireille Broeders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-Luc Bulliard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Isabella Castellano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Patricia Fitzpatrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alfonso Frigerio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Solveig Hofvind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ondřej Májek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Nereo Segnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Stephen Taplin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

the ICSN DCIS Working Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Ponti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ponti, A., Ronco, G., Lynge, E. et al. Low-grade screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ progresses more slowly than high-grade lesions: evidence from an international multi-centre study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 177, 761–765 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05333-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05333-6

Keywords

  • Breast cancer screening
  • Ductal carcinoma in situ
  • Low-grade DCIS
  • Overtreatment