Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 75, Issue 3, pp 259–268 | Cite as

Changing Incidence of Lobular Carcinoma in situ of the Breast

  • Christopher I. Li
  • Benjamin O. Anderson
  • Janet R. Daling
  • Roger E. Moe

Abstract

Estimating the incidence of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) of the breast is challenging because it lacks both clinical and mammographic signs and is usually an incidental finding in breast biopsies performed for other reasons. In general, population-based studies are believed to provide the most accurate measures, but few documenting changes in LCIS incidence rates over time have been reported. Age-adjusted age-specific LCIS incidence rates among women with no prior history of in situ or invasive breast carcinoma from 1978 to 1998 were obtained from nine population-based cancer registries that participate in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Linear trends were evaluated using negative binomial regression. Overall, LCIS incidence rates increased fourfold (95% confidence interval, 2.9–5.6) over the study period. Specifically, they rose from 0.90/100,000 person-years in 1978–80 to 2.83/100,000 person-years in 1987–89, but then increased only modestly up to 1996–98 where the incidence rate was 3.19/100,000 person-years. However, among women 50–79 years of age, LCIS incidence rates increased continuously over the study's duration. In 1996–98, 50–59 year-olds had the highest incidence rate (11.47/100,000 person-years) and experienced the greatest absolute increase in incidence over the study period (9.48/100,000 person-years). LCIS incidence rates have steadily increased from 1978 to 1998 only among postmenopausal women. Further research is required to assess what factors are contributing to these trends.

breast neoplasms in situ carcinomas lobular carcinomas SEER 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Frantz VK, Pickren JW, Melcher GW, Auchincloss H: Inci-dence of chronic disease in so-called 'normal breasts.' Cancer 4: 762–783, 1951Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kramer WM, Rush BF: Mammary duct proliferation in the elderly: a histopathologic study. Cancer 31: 130–137, 1973Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alpers CE, Wellings SR: The prevalence of carcinoma in situ in normal and cancer-associated breasts. Hum Pathol 16: 796–807, 1985Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen M, Jensen J, Andersen J: Precancerous and cancerous breast lesions during lifetime and at autopsy: a study of 83 women. Cancer 54: 612–615, 1984Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haagensen CD, Lane N, Lattes R, Bodian C: Lobular neo-plasia (so-called lobular carcinoma in situ)of thebreast. Cancer 42: 737–769, 1978Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andersen JA: Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: an approach to rational treatment. Cancer 39: 2597–2602, 1977Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wheeler JE, Enterline HT, Roseman JM, Tomasulo JP, McIlvaine CH, Fitts WT, Kirshenbaum J: Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: long-term followup. Cancer 34: 554–563, 1974Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Page DL, Kidd Jr TE, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Rogers LW: Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol 22: 1232–1239, 1991Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levi F, Te V-C, Randimbison L, La Vecchia C: Trends of in situ carcinoma of the breast in Vaud, Switzerland. Eur J Cancer 33: 903–906, 1997Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon MS, Lemanne D, Schwartz AG, Martino S, Swanson GM: Recent trends in the incidence of in situ and invasive breast cancer in the Detroit metropolitan area (1975–1988). Cancer 71: 769–774, 1993Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zheng T, Holford TR, Chen Y, Jones BA, Flannery J, Boyle P: Time trend of female breast carcinoma in situ by race and histology in Connecticut, USA. Eur J Cancer 33: 96–100, 1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li CI, Anderson BO, Porter P, Holt SK, Daling JR, Moe RE: Changing incidence rate of invasive lobular breast carcinoma among older women. Cancer 88: 2561–2569, 2000Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li CI, Weiss NS, Stanford JL, Daling JR: Hormone replace-ment therapy in relation to risk of lobular and ductal breast carcinoma in middle-aged women. Cancer 88: 2570–2577, 2000Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Young Jr JL, Percy C, Asire AJ (eds): Surveillance, Epidemi-ology, and End Results: Incidence and Mortality, 1973–77. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 57: 1–1082, 1981Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCullagh P, Nelder JA: Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, 1989, pp 198–199Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gardner W, Mulvey EP, Shaw EC: Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychol Bull 118: 392–404, 1995Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glynn RJ, Buring JE: Ways of measuring rates of recurrent events. BMJ 312: 364–367, 1996Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lishman S, Lakhani S: Atypical lobular hyperplasia and lob-ular carcinoma in situ: surgical and molecular pathology. Histopathology 35: 195–200, 1999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vos CB, Cleton-Jansen AM, Berx G, de Leeuw WJ, ter Haar NT, van Roy F, Cornelisse CJ, Peterse JL: E-cadherin inactiv-ation in lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: an early event in tumorigenesis. Brit J Cancer 76: 1131–1133, 1997Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lantz PM, Remington PL, Newcomb PA: Mammography screening and increased incidence of breast cancer in Wiscon-sin. J Natl Cancer Inst 83: 1540–1546, 1991Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feuer EJ, Wu LM: How much of the recent rise in breast can-cer incidence can be explained by increase in mammography utilization? Am J Epidemiol 136: 1423–1436, 1992Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Hankey BF: The increasing incidence of breast cancer: relevance of early detection. Cancer Causes Control 2: 67–74, 1991Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morabia A, Flandre P: Misclassification bias related to defini-tion of menopausal status in case-control studies of breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 21: 222–228, 1992Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gloeckler-Ries LA, Hankey BF, Edwards BK (eds): Can-cer Statistics Review 1973–87. DHHS Publication No. NIH 90-2789. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, 1990Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frey CM, McMillen MM, Cowan CD, Horm JW, Kessler LG: Representativeness of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program data: recent trends in cancer mortality rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 84: 872–877, 1992Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL, Schapira MM: Generalizability of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry population: factors relevant to epidemiologic and health care research. J Clin Epidemiol 50: 939–945, 1997Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frey CM, Feuer EJ, Timmel MJ: Projection of incidence rates to a larger populations using ecologic variables. Stat Med 13: 1755–1770, 1994Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Breast cancer staging. In: Cancer AJCo (ed) Manual for Stag-ing Cancer. 4th edn, JB Lippincott Co, Philadephia, PA, 2001 (in press)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carlson RW, Anderson BO, Bensinger W, Cox CE, Davidson NE, Edge SB, Farrar WB, Goldstein LJ, Gradishar WJ, Lichter AS, McCormick B, Nabell LM, Reed EC, Silver SM, Smith ML, Somlo G, Theriault R, Ward JH, Winer EP, Wolff A: NCCN practice guidelines for breast cancer. Oncology (Huntington) 14: 33–49, 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher I. Li
    • 1
  • Benjamin O. Anderson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Janet R. Daling
    • 1
  • Roger E. Moe
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Public Health SciencesFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, School of MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations