Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Oncological safety of active surveillance for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ — a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Current standard of care for patients diagnosed with “low-risk” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) involves surgical resection. Ongoing phase III clinical trials are hoping to establish the oncological safety of active surveillance (AS) in managing “low-risk” DCIS.

Aims

To evaluate the oncological safety of AS versus surgery for “low-risk” DCIS.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Survival outcomes were expressed as dichotomous variables and reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using the Mantel–Haenszel method.

Results

Four studies including 9626 patients were included, 3.9% of which were managed using AS (374/9626) and 96.1% with surgery (9252/9626). The mean age of included patients was 50.3 years (range: 30–99 years) and mean follow-up was 6.1 years. Invasive cancer detection after surgery and AS were similar (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.41–2.11, P = 0.860, heterogeneity (I2) = 0%). At 5 years, BCSS (surgery 99.5% vs. AS 98.7%, P = 0.116) and OS (surgery 95.8% vs. AS 95.7%, P = 0.876) were similar for both groups. At 10 years, BCSS (surgery 98.7% vs. AS 98.6%, P = 0.789) and OS (surgery 87.9% vs. AS 90.9%, P = 0.183) were similar for both groups. Overall, 10-year OS outcomes were similar for both management strategies (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.02–6.42, P = 0.460, I2 = 69%).

Conclusion

This study outlines the provisional oncological safety of AS for cases of “low-risk” DCIS. While survival outcomes were comparable for both management strategies, ratification of these results in the ongoing phase III clinical trials is still required prior to changes to current management strategies.

Prospero registration

CRD42022313241.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Virnig BA et al (2010) Ductal carcinoma in situ: risk factors and impact of screening. J Nat Cancer Inst Monogra 2010(41):113–116

  2. Neal CH et al (2021) Digital mammography has persistently increased high-grade and overall DCIS detection without altering upgrade rate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 216(4):912–918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70(1):7–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vaidya Y, Vaidya P, Vaidya T (2015) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Indian J Surg 77(2):141–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elshof LE et al (2018) Cause-specific mortality in a population-based cohort of 9799 women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg 267(5):952–958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Worni M et al (2015) Trends in treatment patterns and outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 107(12):djv263

  7. van Seijen M et al (2019) Ductal carcinoma in situ: to treat or not to treat, that is the question. Br J Cancer 121(4):285–292

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Davey MG et al (2022) Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJS Open 6(2)

  9. Allred DC, Mohsin SK, Fuqua SA (2001) Histological and biological evolution of human premalignant breast disease. Endocr Relat Cancer 8(1):47–61

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ozanne EM et al (2011) Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129(1):165–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Doke K, Butler S, Mitchell MP (2018) Current therapeutic approaches to DCIS. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 23(4):279–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hwang ES, Solin L (2020) De-escalation of locoregional therapy in low-risk disease for DCIS and early-stage invasive cancer. J Clin Oncol 38(20):2230–2239

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Francis A et al (2015) Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer 51(16):2296–2303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Elshof LE et al (2015) 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 51(12):1497–1510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hwang ES et al (2019) 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 9(3):e026797

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kanbayashi C et al (2019) The international collaboration of active surveillance trials for low-risk DCIS (LORIS, LORD, COMET, LORETTA). J Clin Oncol 37(15_suppl):TPS603–TPS603

  17. Moher D et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Stroup DF et al (2008) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012

  19. Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25(9):603–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim H-Y (2017) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restor Dent Endod 42(2):152–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Co M et al (2021) Long-term survival outcomes of “low risk” ductal carcinoma in situ from a territory-wide cancer registry. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 33(1):40–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grimm LJ et al (2017) Imaging features of patients undergoing active surveillance for ductal carcinoma in situ. Acad Radiol 24(11):1364–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Limberg J et al (2021) Intraductal papilloma of the breast: prevalence of malignancy and natural history under active surveillance. Ann Surg Oncol 28(11):6032–6040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sagara Y 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 

  25. Garg PK et al (2018) Adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation following lumpectomy in ductal carcinoma in-situ: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast J 24(3):233–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Correa C et al (2010) Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010(41):162–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kinsella N et al (2018) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl Urol 7(1):83–97

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Morrow M, Winer EP (2020) De-escalating breast cancer surgery—where is the tipping point? JAMA Oncol 6(2):183–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Giuliano AE et al (2017) Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(10):918–926

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Morrow M (2017) De-escalating and escalating surgery in the management of early breast cancer. Breast 34(Suppl 1):S1-S4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Davey MG et al (2021) Evaluating the clinical utility of routine sentinel lymph node biopsy and the value of adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients diagnosed with oestrogen receptor positive, clinically node negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 15:11782234211022204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Paz Villanueva CC et al (2017) Factors associated with underestimation of invasive cancer in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: precautions for active surveillance. JAMA Surg 152(11):1007–1014

  33. Zheng L, Gökmen-Polar Y, Badve SS (2022) Is conservative management of ductal carcinoma in situ risky? NPJ Breast Cancer 8(1):55

Download references

Funding

MGD received funding from the National Breast Cancer Research Institute, Ireland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, The Lambe Institute for Translational Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, H91YR71, Ireland

    Matthew G. Davey, Aoife J. Lowery & Michael J. Kerin

  2. Department of Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, H91YR71, Republic of Ireland

    Matthew G. Davey

Authors
  1. Matthew G. Davey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aoife J. Lowery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Kerin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew G. Davey.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was not required as this is a systematic review of previously published studies.

Consent to participate

Not required as this is a review of previously published data.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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 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

Davey, M.G., Lowery, A.J. & Kerin, M.J. Oncological safety of active surveillance for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ — a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ir J Med Sci 192, 1595–1600 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-022-03157-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-022-03157-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation