Abstract
Objective
During 2015, the media was flooded with the issue of whether ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was being overtreated and whether favorable cases could be simply watched (core biopsy only followed by surveillance). To answer this question, we looked at DCIS patients treated with excision alone with margin width <1 mm as inadequate and a surrogate for no treatment (surveillance group) and margin ≥1 mm as adequate surgical excision (excision group).
Methods
A total of 720 patients with pure DCIS treated with excision alone were stratified into two groups based on margin width and further subdivided by nuclear grade. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to determine local recurrence-free survival. Differences in outcome were analyzed using the log-rank test.
Results
The 10-year local recurrence probabilities are statistically significant for low-grade versus high-grade and surveillance alone versus excision alone. The comparison of excision alone group with margins ≥1 mm for low-grade DCIS versus high-grade DCIS shows a 10-year local recurrence-free survival rate of 13 versus 35 % (p < 0.0001). The surveillance group had (margins <1 mm) had higher rates of recurrence in both the low-grade group (51 %) and high-grade group (70 %) (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
This study indicates that there is not an acceptable level of local control in DCIS patients with tumor margins <1 mm that undergo active surveillance, regardless of tumor grade. Leaving even low-grade DCIS untreated would lead to local recurrence in more than half the patients in 10 years. Needle biopsy and surveillance for DCIS, regardless of grade, is just not adequate at this time.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Esserman L, Yau C. Rethinking of standard for ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):881–3.
Kolata G. Doubt is raised over value of surgery for breast lesion at earliest stage. New York Times. 20 Aug 2015.
NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): breast cancer. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf (2015).
Skinner KA, Silverstein MJ. The management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2001;8(1):33–45.
Silverstein MJ. Intraductal breast carcinoma: two decades of progress? Am J Clin Oncol. 1991;14(6):534–7.
Silverstein M. Insanity of ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein MJ, editors. Ductal carcinoma in situ. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1997. p. 713.
Jorgensen K, Keen J, Gotzsche P. Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? Radiology. 2011;260(3):621–7.
Kopans D, Smith R, Duffy S. Mammographic screening and “overdiagnosis”. Radiology. 2011;260(3):616–20.
Allred DC. Ductal carcinoma in situ: terminology, classification, and natural history. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):134–8.
Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. 2008; www.nccn.org, 2008.
Francis A, Bartlett J, Billingham I, et al. The LORIS trial: a multicentre, randomized phase III trial of standard surgery versus active monitoring in women with newly diagnosed low risk ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Res. 2013;73:OT2–3.
Francis A, Fallowfield L, Rea D. The LORIS Trial: addressing overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Oncol. 2015;27:6–8.
Van Zee K, Subhedar P, Olcese C, Patil S, Morrow M. Relationship between margin width and recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery for 30 years. Ann Surg. 2015;262(4):623–31.
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.
Moran M, Schnitt S, Giuliano A, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American, Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:704–16.
Silverstein M, Lagios M. treatment of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast using the University of Southern California/Van Nuys (USC/VNPI). Breast J. 2015;21:127–32.
Sanders M, Schuyler P, Dupont W, Page D. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer. 2005;103:2481–4.
Sanders M, Schuyler P, Simpson J, Page D, Dupont W. Continued observation of the natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ reaffirms proclivity for local recurrence even after more than 30 years of follow-up. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:662–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khan, S., Epstein, M., Lagios, M.D. et al. Are We Overtreating Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS)?. Ann Surg Oncol 24, 59–63 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5501-z
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5501-z