Comparison of Local Recurrence Risk Estimates After Breast-Conserving Surgery for DCIS: DCIS Nomogram Versus Refined Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score
- 203 Downloads
A ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) Nomogram integrating 10 clinicopathologic/treatment factors and a Refined DCIS Score (RDS) that incorporates a genomic assay and three clinicopathologic factors (Oncotype DX DCIS Score) are available to estimate DCIS 10-year local recurrence risk (LRR). This study compared these estimates.
Patients 50 years of age or older with DCIS size 2.5 cm or smaller and a genomic assay available were identified. An RDS within 1–2% of the range of Nomogram LRR estimates obtained by assuming use and non-use of endocrine therapy (Nomogram ± ET) was defined as concordant. Assuming a 10-year risk threshold of 10% for recommending radiation, Nomogram ± ET and RDS estimates were compared, and threshold concordance was determined.
For 54 (92%) of 59 patients, the RDS and Nomogram ± ET LRR estimates were concordant. For the remaining 5 (8%) of the 59 patients, the RDS LRR estimates were lower than the Nomogram + ET estimates, with an absolute difference of 3–8%, and thus were discordant. For these five patients, the RDS estimates of 10-year LRR were lower than 10% (range 5–8%) and the Nomogram + ET estimates were 10% or higher (range 11–14%). These five patients with both discordant and threshold-discordant estimates all had close margins (≤ 2 mm).
Among 92% of women 50 years of age or older with DCIS size 2.5 cm or smaller, free-of-charge online Nomogram 10-year LRR estimates were concordant with those obtained using the commercially available RDS (> $4600). Among the 8% with discordant risk estimates, the RDS appeared to underestimate the LRR and may lead to inappropriate omission of radiotherapy. Unless other data show a clinically significant advantage of the RDS (Oncotype DX DCIS Score), the study data suggest that for women 50 years of age or older with DCIS size 2.5 cm or smaller, its use is not warranted.
The preparation of this manuscript was funded in part by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748 to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Dr. Kimberly J. Van Zee and Dr. Susan Fineberg, have served on the Advisory Board of Genomic Health (Redwood City, CA), and Dr. Jana Fox serves as a consultant to Genomic Health. Dr. Monica Morrow has received speaking honoraria from Genomic Health and Roche.
- 6.McCormick B. Randomized trial evaluating radiation following surgical excision for “good risk” DCIS: 12-year report from NRG/RTOG 9804. 2018 ASTRO annual meeting. Abstract no. LBA1 Presented 21 October 2018.Google Scholar
- 10.Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score: Clinical evidence. Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA. Retrieved 15 October 2018 https://www.oncotypeiq.com/en-US/breast-cancer/healthcare-professionals/oncotype-dx-breast-dcis-score/clinical-evidence.
- 11.Fitzgibbons PL, Bose S, Chen YY, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. College of American Pathologists 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2018 http://www.cap.org/cancerprotocols.
- 20.Sedloev T, Vasileva M, Kundurzhiev T, Hadjieva T. Validation of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center nomogram in the prediction of local recurrence risks after conserving surgery for Bulgarian women with DCIS of the breast. Conference Paper presented at the 2nd world congress on controversies in breast cancer (CoBrCa), Barcelona, Spain, September 2016. Retrieved 22 March 2017 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312232507_Validation_of_the_Memorial_Sloan-Kettering_Cancer_Center_nomogram_in_the_prediction_of_local_recurrence_risks_after_conserving_surgery_for_Bulgarian_women_with_DCIS_of_the_breast.
- 25.Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology–American Society for Radiation Oncology–American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3801–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar