Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 3282–3288 | Cite as

Comparison of Local Recurrence Risk Estimates After Breast-Conserving Surgery for DCIS: DCIS Nomogram Versus Refined Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score

  • Kimberly J. Van ZeeEmail author
  • Emily C. Zabor
  • Rosemarie Di Donato
  • Bryan Harmon
  • Jana Fox
  • Monica Morrow
  • Hiram S. CodyIII
  • Susan A. Fineberg
Breast Oncology



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.


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Worni M, Akushevich I, Greenup R, et al. Trends in treatment patterns and outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Correa C, McGale P, et al. Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;41:162–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Subhedar P, Olcese C, Patil S, Morrow M, Van Zee KJ. Decreasing recurrence rates for ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery over 30 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3273–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCormick B, Winter K, Hudis C, et al. RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:709–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Henson KE, McGale P, Taylor C, Darby SC. Radiation-related mortality from heart disease and lung cancer more than 20 years after radiotherapy for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:179–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rudloff U, Jacks LM, Goldberg JI, et al. Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3762–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:701–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score: Clinical evidence. Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA. Retrieved 15 October 2018
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Satagopan JM, Iasonos A, Kanik JG. A reconstructed melanoma data set for evaluating differential treatment benefit according to biomarker subgroups. Data Brief. 2017;12:667–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cronin PA, Olcese C, Patil S, Morrow M, Van Zee KJ. Impact of age on risk of recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ: outcomes of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery over 30 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2816–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saqi A, Osborne MP, Rosenblatt R, Shin SJ, Hoda SA. Quantifying mammary duct carcinoma in situ: a wild-goose chase? Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;113(Suppl 1):S30–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guidi AJ, Tworek JA, Mais DD, Souers RJ, Blond BJ, Brown RW. Breast specimen processing and reporting with an emphasis on margin evaluation: a College of American Pathologists survey of 866 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142:496–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, et al. A population-based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast-conserving surgery alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;152:389–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paszat L, Sutradhar R, Zhou L, Nofech-Mozes S, Rakovitch E. Including the ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) Score in the development of a multivariable prediction model for recurrence after excision of DCIS. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018; 19:35–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rakovitch E, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. Refined estimates of local recurrence risks by DCIS score adjusting for clinicopathological features: a combined analysis of ECOG-ACRIN E5194 and Ontario DCIS cohort studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169:359–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Collins LC, Achacoso N, Haque R, et al. Risk prediction for local breast cancer recurrence among women with DCIS treated in a community practice: a nested, case-control study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S502–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Sweldens C, Peeters S, van Limbergen E, et al. Local relapse after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a European single-center experience and external validation of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center DCIS nomogram. Cancer J. 2014;20:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang F, Li H, Tan PH, et al. Validation of a nomogram in the prediction of local recurrence risks after conserving surgery for Asian women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin Oncol R Coll Radiol. 2014;26:684–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yi M, Meric-Bernstam F, Kuerer HM, et al. Evaluation of a breast cancer nomogram for predicting risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ after local excision. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:600–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marinovich ML, Azizi L, Macaskill P, et al. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(12):3811–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Van Zee KJ, 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;262:623–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:478–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:21–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Allred DC, Anderson SJ, Paik S, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on NSABP protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1268–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Breast Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of PathologyMontefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyMontefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations