Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ

  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a preinvasive form of breast cancer that has increased in incidence over the past 25 years, primarily as a result of mammographically detected microcalcifications. Inadequately treated DCIS carries a risk for evolving into the malignant phenotype; however, the magnitude and timeline for this risk are poorly defined. Treatment options include lumpectomy with or without breast irradiation and mastectomy. The overall survival rate is 96% to 98% with any of these strategies, but the risk of local recurrence (LR) is highest after lumpectomy alone. Breast irradiation can reduce this risk from levels in excess of 40% to 10% over a 10-year follow-up period. Approximately 50% of all LR from DCIS are invasive lesions. Therefore, the occurrence of a LR after breast-conserving therapy is a potentially greater threat to the patient with DCIS compared to the patient diagnosed with invasive cancer. In patients diagnosed with invasive cancer, the risk of micrometastatic disease is present from the time of initial diagnosis. In patients with DCIS, the expectation is that a potentially 100% cure rate should be achieved with local therapy alone. Although most DCIS cases complicated by LR will be successfully salvaged with prolonged overall survival, it is critically important to take every precaution that will minimize the risk of locally recurrent disease. Therefore, radiation therapy as an adjunct to lumpectomy is essential. A subset of patients with DCIS with low-volume low-grade disease who can be safely treated by lumpectomy alone has not yet been clearly defined. Prospective studies designed to identify this category are ongoing. Inadequate margin control is the most consistent risk factor for LR that has been reported thus far, but there is no universally accepted definition for what constitutes an optimal negative margin distance. Young age at diagnosis, high nuclear grade, and comedonecrosis are other factors that have been implicated as increasing the risk for LR. Tamoxifen can further decrease the rate of new in-breast events on the affected side and in the contralateral breast. Ongoing trials will also define the role of aromatase inhibitors as a risk-reducing strategy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, et al.: Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA 1996, 275:913–938.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ries L, Eisner M, Kosary CL, et al.: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1999. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nielsen M, Jensen J, Andersen J: Precancerous and cancerous breast lesions during lifetime and at autopsy: a study of 83 women. Cancer 1984, 54:612–615.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nielsen M, Thomsen JL, Primdahl S, et al.: Breast cancer and atypia among young and middle-aged women: a study of 110 medicolegal autopsies. Br J Cancer 1987, 56:814–819.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Alpers CE, Wellings SR: The prevalence of carcinoma in situ in normal and cancer-associated breasts. Hum Pathol 1985, 16:796–807.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhathal PS, Brown RW, Lesueur GC, et al.: Frequency of benign and malignant breast lesions in 207 consecutive autopsies in Australian women. Br J Cancer 1985, 51:271–278.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosen PP, Braun DW Jr, Kinne DE: The clinical significance of pre-invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 1980, 46:919–925.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Betsill WL Jr, Rosen PP, Lieberman PH, et al.: Intraductal carcinoma: long-term follow-up after treatment by biopsy alone. JAMA 1978, 239:1863–1867.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, et al.: Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only. Cancer 1982, 49:751–758.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Holland R, Hendriks JH, Vebeek AL, et al.: Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1990, 335:519–522.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lagios MD, Westdahl PR, Margolin FR, et al.: Duct carcinoma in situ: relationship of extent of noninvasive disease to the frequency of occult invasion, multicentricity, lymph node metastases, and short-term treatment failures. Cancer 1982, 50:1309–1314.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Albert S, Belle S, Eckert D, et al.: Current surgical management of in situ cancer of the female breast. J Surg Oncol 1982, 20:99–104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K: Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Arch Intern Med 2000, 160:953–958. This study, in conjunction with Ernster et al. [1], provides useful data on the magnitude of DCIS in the United States, in correlation with expansion of mammographic screening programs.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Evans A: The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: radiological diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res 2003, 5:250–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fisher ER, Leeming R, Anderson S, et al.: Conservative management of intraductal carcinoma (DCIS) of the breast: collaborating NSABP investigators. J Surg Oncol 1991, 47:139–147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Julien JP, Bijker N, Fentiman IS, et al.: Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853. EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. Lancet 2000, 355:528–533. This phase III clinical trial, similar to the NSABP B-17 protocol, confirms the safety of breast-conserving therapy for DCIS, but with higher local recurrence rates when lumpectomy is performed alone.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher ER, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E, et al.: Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight-year update of Protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma. Cancer 1999, 86:429–438.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al.: Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:441–452.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L, et al.: 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 2001, 19:2263–2271.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Weng EY, Juillard GJ, Parker RG, et al.: Outcomes and factors impacting local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 2000, 88:1643–1649.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jha MK, Avlonitis VS, Griffith CD, et al.: Aggressive local treatment for screen-detected DCIS results in very low rates of recurrence. Eur J Surg Oncol 2001, 27:454–458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Habel LA, Daling JR, Newcomb PA, et al.: Risk of recurrence after ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998, 7:689–696.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kestin LL, Goldstein NS, Martinez AA, et al.: Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ treated with conservative surgery with or without radiation therapy: patterns of failure and 10-year results. Ann Surg 2000, 231:235–245.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. de Mascarel I, Bonichon F, MacGrogan G, et al.: Application of the van nuys prognostic index in a retrospective series of 367 ductal carcinomas in situ of the breast examined by serial macroscopic sectioning: practical considerations. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000, 61:151–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chan KC, Knox WF, Sinha G, et al.: Extent of excision margin width required in breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 2001, 91:9–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Neuschatz AC, DiPetrillo T, Safaii H, et al.: Margin width as a determinant of local control with and without radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. Int J Cancer 2001, 96:97–104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Silverstein MJ: The University of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg 2003, 186:337–343. The VNPI is a landmark endeavor to stratify DCIS risk and eligibility for breast-conserving treatment based on discrete clinical and pathologic features.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ringberg A, Anagnostaki L, Anderson H, et al.: Cell biological factors in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast relationship to ipsilateral local recurrence and histopathological characteristics. Eur J Cancer 2001, 37:1514–1522.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Douglas-Jones AG, Logan J, Morgan JM, et al.: Effect of margins of excision on recurrence after local excision of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol 2002, 55:581–586.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Jhingran A, Kim JS, Buchholz TA, et al.: Age as a predictor of outcome for women with DCIS treated with breastconserving surgery and radiation: the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 54:804–809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fowble B, Hanlon AL, Fein DA, et al.: Results of conservative surgery and radiation for mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997, 38:949–957.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA, et al.: Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation: long-term outcome and prognostic significance of patient age and margin status. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 50:991–1002.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Boyages J, Delaney G, Taylor R: Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Cancer 1999, 85:616–628.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Clark L, Ritter E, Glazebrook K, et al.: Recurrent ductal carcinoma in situ after total mastectomy. J Surg Oncol 1999, 71:182–185.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Montgomery RC, Fowble BL, Goldstein LJ, et al.: Local recurrence after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 1998, 4:430–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Consensus conference of the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. The Consensus Conference Committee. Cancer 1997, 80:1798–1802.

  40. Wong J, Gadd M, Gelman R, et al.: Wide excision alone for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Proceedings of the 26th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. San Antonio: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2003:15.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Intra M, Veronesi P, Mazzarol G, et al.: Axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Surg 2003, 138:309–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pendas S, Dauway E, Giuliano R, et al.: Sentinel node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2000, 7:15–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Allred DC, Bryant J, Lard S, et al.: Estrogen receptor expression as a predictive marker of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in the treatment of DCIS: findings from NSABP Protocol B-24. Proceedings of the 25th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2002:30.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Baum M, Budzar AU, Cuzick J, et al.: Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomised trial. Lancet 2002, 359:2131–2139. This landmark study demonstrating the benefits of anastrozole in the adjuvant setting for invasive breast cancer provides the basis for the NSABP B-35 study, which randomizes postmenopausal patients with DCIS to receive anastrozole versus tamoxifen.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Julian T, Land S, Wolmark N: NSABP B-35: a clinical trial to compare anastrozole and tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy with radiation therapy. Breast Dis Yearbook Q 2003, 14:121–122.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S, et al.: The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med 1999, 340:1455–1461.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Care Center, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, 48109, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Lisa A. Newman MD, MPH

Authors
  1. Amina Khan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa A. Newman MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khan, A., Newman, L.A. Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 5, 131–144 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-004-0045-z

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-004-0045-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation