Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease?

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (DCISM) can be challenging in balancing the risks of overtreatment versus undertreatment. We compared DCISM, pure DCIS, and small volume (T1a) invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) as related to histopathology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes.

Methods

Women ages 18–90 years who underwent breast surgery for DCIS, DCISM, or T1a IDC were selected from the SEER Database (2004–2015). Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of diagnosis with treatment and survival, respectively.

Results

A total of 134,569 women were identified: 3.2% DCISM, 70.9% DCIS, and 25.9% with T1a IDC. Compared with invasive disease, DCISM was less likely to be ER+ or PR+ and more likely to be HER2+. After adjustment, DCIS and invasive patients were less likely to undergo mastectomy than DCISM patients (DCIS: OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.49–0.56; invasive: OR 0.86, CI 0.81–0.92). For those undergoing lumpectomy, the likelihood of receiving radiation was similar for DCISM and invasive patients but lower for DCIS patients (OR 0.57, CI 0.52–0.63). After adjustment, breast-cancer-specific survival was significantly different between DCISM and the other two groups (DCIS: HR 0.59, CI 0.43–0.8; invasive: HR 1.43, CI 1.04–1.96). However, overall survival was not significantly different between DCISM and invasive disease, whereas patients with DCIS had improved OS (HR 0.83, CI 0.75–0.93).

Conclusions

Although DCISM is a distinct entity, current treatment patterns and prognosis are comparable to those with small volume IDC. These findings may help providers counsel patients and determine appropriate treatment plans.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Aft R, et al. NCCN guidelines: breast cancer, version 1. 2018. 20 March 2018.

  2. Shapiro-Wright HM, Julian TB. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and management of the axilla in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):145–149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, et al. The COMET (Comparison of Operative to Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) Trial: a phase III randomized trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ. 2018;9:e026797.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, et al. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - The LORD study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(12):1497–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Francis A, Fallowfield L, Rea D. The LORIS Trial: Addressing overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin oncol (R Coll Radiol (Great Britain)). 2015;27(1):6–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Parikh RR, Haffty BG, Lannin D, Moran MS. Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: prognostic implications, long-term outcomes, and role of axillary evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(1):7–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Li Y, Zhang S, Wei X, Zhang J. The clinical features and management of women with ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg (London, Engl). 2015;19:91–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fang Y, Wu J, Wang W, et al. Biologic behavior and long-term outcomes of breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Oncotarget. 2016;7(39):64182–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang W, Zhu W, Du F, Luo Y, Xu B. The demographic features, clinicopathological characteristics and cancer-specific outcomes for patients with microinvasive breast cancer: a SEER database analysis. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:42045.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sopik V, Sun P, Narod SA. Impact of microinvasion on breast cancer mortality in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;167(3):787–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Adjusted AJCC 6th ed. T, N, M, and Stage. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/variables/seer/ajcc-stage/6th/#cs. Accessed 16 Apr 2019.

  12. Hortobagyi GN, Connolly JL, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Breast. In: Amin MB, Gress DM, Meyer Vega LR, Edge SB, Greene FL, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, Compton CC, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th edn. New York, NY: Springer; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wan ZB, Gao HY, Wei L, et al. Expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki-67 in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(44):e13055.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Grimm LJ, Ryser MD, Partridge AH, et al. Surgical upstaging rates for vacuum assisted biopsy proven DCIS: implications for active surveillance trials. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(12):3534–3540.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. de Paz Villanueva CC, Bonev V, Senthil M, et al. Factors associated with underestimation of invasive cancer in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: precautions for active surveillance. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(11):1007–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kurniawan ED, Rose A, Mou A, et al. Risk factors for invasive breast cancer when core needle biopsy shows ductal carcinoma in situ. Arch Surg. 2010;145(11):1098–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chin-Lenn L, Mack LA, Temple W, et al. Predictors of treatment with mastectomy, use of sentinel lymph node biopsy and upstaging to invasive cancer in patients diagnosed with breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(1):66–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Burstein HJ, Polyak K, Wong JS, Lester SC, Kaelin CM. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(14):1430–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Narod SA, Sopik V. Is invasion a necessary step for metastases in breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(1):9–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Narod SA. A comparison of two models for breast cancer mortality for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: an SEER-based analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):587–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hwang ES, DeVries S, Chew KL, et al. Patterns of chromosomal alterations in breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(15):5160–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Abba MC, Gong T, Lu Y, et al. A molecular portrait of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Res. 2015;75(18):3980–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ellsworth RE, Vertrees A, Love B, Hooke JA, Ellsworth DL, Shriver CD. Chromosomal alterations associated with the transition from in situ to invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(9):2519–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Iakovlev VV, Arneson NC, Wong V, et al. Genomic differences between pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and that associated with invasive disease: a calibrated aCGH study. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(14):4446–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database is supported by the Surveillance Research Program in the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences. The SEER database is the source of the de-identified data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors. Dr. R. Greenup is supported by the National Institutes of Health Office of Women’s Research Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health K12HD043446 (PI: Andrews). Dr. O. Fayanju is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Number Award Number 1KL2TR002554 (PI: Svetkey). This work is also supported by the Duke Cancer Institute through NIH grant P30CA014236 (PI: Kastan). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Disclosures

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC, Durham, NC, USA

    Cosette D. Champion BS, Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju MD, Laura H. Rosenberger MD, Rachel A. Greenup MD, Carolyn S. Menendez MD, E. Shelley Hwang MD & Jennifer K. Plichta MD

  2. Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA

    Cosette D. Champion BS, Yi Ren MS, Samantha M. Thomas MS, Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju MD, Laura H. Rosenberger MD, Rachel A. Greenup MD, Carolyn S. Menendez MD, E. Shelley Hwang MD & Jennifer K. Plichta MD

  3. Duke Cancer Institute, Biostatistics Shared Resources, Durham, NC, USA

    Yi Ren MS & Samantha M. Thomas MS

Authors
  1. Cosette D. Champion BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi Ren MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samantha M. Thomas MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura H. Rosenberger MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rachel A. Greenup MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carolyn S. Menendez MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. Shelley Hwang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jennifer K. Plichta MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer K. Plichta MD.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4403 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Champion, C.D., Ren, Y., Thomas, S.M. et al. DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease?. Ann Surg Oncol 26, 3124–3132 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07556-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07556-9

Search

Navigation