Current Treatment of DCIS

Christina Choy, Kefah Mokbel

The London Breast Institute, Princess Grace Hospital, London, UK.

DOI: 10.4236/jct.2014.52022                

Abstract

Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in-situ DCIS is a heterogeneous entity in breast neoplasm with unpredictable biological behavior. This poses challenge in the management of DCIS. Various trials on DCIS have shown good outcome with integral treatment of adequate surgery, radiotherapy and hormonal therapy. Identification of subgroup of DCIS for radiotherapy and hormonal therapy could improve recurrence rate, contralateral tumours incidence and perhaps overall survival. Various risk score calculations could help to direct radiotherapy and hormonal treatment verses surgery alone and to avoid over treatment. Oncotype DX assay could be a new way of risk calculation to direct types of DCIS treatment. The recent increased use of MRI could increase the detection of DCIS and a more accurate extent of disease estimation. This article is a summary of major literatures and major trials result for DCIS.

Keywords

Early Breast Cancer; DCIS; Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

DCIS is a heterogeneous pathological entity at a molecular level with a variable and unpredictable biological behavior. Although it is considered to be the precursor of the most invasive breast cancers, however not all DCIS will progress to this stage. The overall progression to invasive breast cancer has been reported to range from 14% to 75% [1]. Therefore the challenge in the modern management of DCIS is to avoid over-treatment.

2. Discussion

Screen-detected DCIS accounts for approximately 25% of newly diagnosed breast cancers and seems to be associated with lower rates of local recurrence after treatment compared with symptomatic disease [3,4] and therefore a proportion of these cases may be less clinically relevant [5,6].

Integral to the successful management of DCIS, is surgical excision of the disease with clear margins [7] (this may involve breast conservation surgery BCS or mastectomy with or without reconstructive techniques). MRI seems to be a more accurate imaging modality than digital mammography to assess the extent of DCIS [2] and hence could help in better case selection for BCS. MRI may over-estimate the extent of disease and therefore tissue sampling of MRI detected abnormalities should be considered in order to avoid overtreatment. Breast radiotherapy (RT) and hormonal treatments are also given as adjuvant therapies where appropriate but can these be safely omitted in certain cases?

Treated DCIS has an excellent overall prognosis and therefore differences in survival have been difficult to demonstrate even in large trials. Differences in local recurrence (LR) rates have been used as a surrogate marker for survival. RT was shown to reduce LR in early invasive breast-cancer in 1995 [8] and to be indirectly associated with improved survival in 2005, in that one death was prevented for every four local-recurrences avoided [9]. A direct improvement in overall survival (OS) in early breast-cancer attributable to RT of around one sixth has since been demonstrated [10].

An analysis of long term data on patients treated for DCIS from the NSABP B-17 and NSABP B-24 trials [11] showed that at 15 years, the RT treated patients had significantly fewer local recurrences and that this effect increased over time. Of those that did recur 54% were invasive, and for these patients overall survival was lower (HR of death = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.45 to 2.96, P < 0.001).

A recent update from the EORTC 10853 randomized trial showed that RT reduced the risk of any LR by 48% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P < 0.001). At 15 years, almost one in three non-irradiated women developed a LR after local excision for DCIS and RT reduced this risk by a factor of 2 [12].

The UK/ANZ DCIS trial assessed the effect of adjuvant treatment with tamoxifen and radiotherapy after BCS for DCIS. After a median follow-up of 12.7 years [13], a significant reduction in LR and contra-lateral tumors in the tamoxifen treated patients was seen (HR 0.70, CI 0.51-0.86, p = 0.03 for reducing ipsilateral DCIS recurrence; HR 0.44, CI 0.25-0.77, p = 0.005 for contralateral tumour; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88, p = 0.002 for reducing incidence in all new breast events). A recent metaanalysis of the UK/ANZ DCIS and B-24 trials showed that the addition of tamoxifen to surgery and RT for DCIS reduced the risk of local invasive and contra lateral in situ relapses, but did not improve the overall survival. The benefit was independent of age [14]. Trials are ongoing to determine if aromatase inhibitors are superior to tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting after BCS for estrogen receptor (ER) positive DCIS (NSABP B-35 and IBIS II).

In a population-based cohort study involving 1676 patients with an average follow up of 7.1 years, Sprague et al reported that the 5-year DFS was similar among women treated with ipsilateral mastectomy compared to women treated with BCS and RT, though women receiving BCS without radiation experienced poorer disease free survival DFS. Women treated with tamoxifen in addition to BCS and RT had a similar risk of a second breast event, although the hazard ratio (HR) suggested a potential benefit however the difference was not statistically significant (0.70, 95% CI 0.41 - 1.19) [15].

It is clear that there is a significant potential benefit overall for patients with DCIS from adjuvant treatments, but given the very good overall prognosis of this condition, patients with a low risk of LR are likely to be those in which adjuvant treatments could be omitted. Tumour size and grade, age, the presence or absence of necrosis and the “comedo” sub-type have been found to be statistically associated with the risk of LR in an independent pathological review of cases from the UKCCCR/ANZ DCIS trial [16]. Margin width was the most significant factor associated with local-recurrence in a large meta-analysis [7]. These factors in isolation are insufficient to safely omit adjuvant treatments or to validate less extensive surgery but in combination may be useful. For example a 70 year old woman with a small low grade DCIS can be treated with adequate local excision alone (margin width > 2 mm), whereas a 45 year old woman with a high grade DCIS will benefit from adjuvant RT (and tamoxifen if the DCIS is ER positive) after BCS.

The Van Nuys index (VNI) which is derived from the patients’ age, tumor size, surgical margin width, nuclear grade, and the presence/absence of comedo necrosis is used to determine the risk of LR after BCS for DCIS and guide therapeutic decision-making. [17] Recent advances in genomic profiling have led to the development of molecular signatures that have a prognostic utility. The Oncotype-DX-DCISTM is a genomic signature that has been introduced to guide RT decisions in DCIS by generating a score which predicts the risk of LR [18]. This score was validated using data from the ECOG 5194 study which included patients treated with BCS alone [19].

3. Conclusion

Further research is required to determine the role of new RT regimes, such as accelerated partial breast irradiation and endocrine therapies. Biological profiling and molecular analysis represent an opportunity to improve our understanding of the tumor biology of this condition and rationalize its treatment. Reliable identification of lowrisk lesions could allow treatment to be less radical or safely omitted.

NOTES

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	N. Patani, Y. Khaled, S. Al Reefy and K. Mokbel, “Ductal Carcinoma in-Situ: An Update for Clinical Practice,” Surgical Oncology, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2011, pp. E23-E31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc. 2010.08.007
[2]	H. I. Greenwood, S. L.Heller, S. Kim, E. E. Sigmund, S. D. Shaylor and L. Moy, “Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breasts: Review of MR Imaging Features,” Radiographics, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2013, pp. 1569-1588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.336125055
[3]	K. Kerlikowske, A Molinaro, I. Cha, B. M. Ljung, V. L. Ernster, K. Stewart, K. Chew, D. H. Moore 2nd and F. Waldman, “Characteristics Associated with Recurrence among Women with Ductal Carcinoma in-Situ Treated by Lumpectomy,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 95, No. 22, 2003, pp. 1692-1702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djg097
[4]	N. Bijker, J. L. Peterse, L. Duchateau, J. P. Julien, I. S. Fentiman, C. Duval, S. Di Palma, J. Simony-Lafontaine, I. de Mascarel and M. J. van de Vijver, “Risk Factors for Recurrence and Metastasis after Breast Conserving Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma in-Situ: Analysis of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 8, 2001, pp. 2263-2271.
[5]	B. A. Virnig, T. Tuttle, T. Shamliyan and R. Kane, “Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: A Systematic Review of Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 102, No. 3, 2010, pp. 170-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp482
[6]	M. G. Marmot, D. G. Altman, D. A. Cameron, J. A. Dwer, S. G. Thompson and M. Wilcox, “Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: An Independent Review,” Lancet, Vol. 380, No. 9855, 2012, pp. 1778-1786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(12)61611-0
[7]	S. Wang, T. Shamliyan, B. Virnig and R. Kane, “Tumorcharacteristicsas Predictors of Local Recurrence after Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Meta-Analysis,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 127, No. 1, 2011, pp. 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1387-4
[8]	M. Clark, R. Collins, G. Godwin, R. Gray, R. Peto, et al. (Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group), “Effects of Radiotherapy and Surgery in Early Breast Cancer—An Overview of the Randomized Trials,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 333, No. 22, 1995, pp. 1444-1455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199511303332202
[9]	M. Clarke, R. Collins, S. Darby, C. Davies, P. Elphinstone, E. Evans, J. Godwin, R. Gray, C. Hicks, S. James, E. MacKinnon, P. McGale, T. McHugh, R. Peto, C. Taylor, Y. Wang and Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, “Effects of Radiotherapy and of Differences in the Extent of Surgery for Early Breast Cancer on Local Recurrence and 15-Year Survival: An Overview of the Randomised Trials,” Lancet, Vol. 366, No. 9503, 2005, pp. 2087-2106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05) 67887-7
[10]	S. Darby, P. McGale, C. Correa, C. Taylor, R. Arriagada, M. Clarke, D. Cutter, C. Davies, M. Ewertz, J. Godwin, R. Gray, L. Pierce, T. Whelan, Y. Wang, R. Peto and Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, “Effect of Radiotherapy after Breast-Conserving Surgery on 10-Year Recurrence and 15-Year Breast Cancer Death: Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data for 10,801 Women in 17 Randomised Trials,” Lancet, Vol. 378, No. 9804, 2011, pp. 1707-1716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(11)61629-2
[11]	I. L. Wapnir, J. J. Dignam, B. Fisher, E. P. Mamounas, S. J. Anderson, T. B. Julian, S. R. Land, R. G. Margolese, S. M. Swain, J. P. Constantino and N. Wolmark, “Long-Term Outcomes of Invasive Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrences after Lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 Randomized Clinical Trials for DCIS,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 103, No. 6, 2011, pp. 478-488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr027
[12]	M. Donker, S. Litière, G. Werutsky, J. P. Julian, I. S. Fentiman, R. Agresti, P. Rouanet, C. T. de Lara, H. Bartelink, N. Duez, E. J. Rutgers and N. Bijker, “Breast-Conserving Treatment with or without Radiotherapy in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: 15-Year Recurrence Rates and Outcome after a Recurrence. From the EORTC 10853 Randomized Phase III Trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 31, No. 32, 2013, pp. 4045-4059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.5077
[13]	J. Cuzick, I. Sestak, S. Pinder, I. Ellis, S. Forsyth, N. J. Bundred, J. F. Forbes, H. Bishop, I. S. Fentiman and W. D. George, “Effect of Tamoxifen and Radiotherapy in Women with Locally Excised Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Long-Term Results from the UK/ANZ DCIS Trial,” The Lancet Oncology, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2011, pp. 21-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70266-7
[14]	F. Petrelli and S. Barni, “Tamoxifen Added to Radiotherapy and Surgery for the Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: A Meta-Analysis of 2 Randomized Trials,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 100, No. 2, 2011, pp. 195-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.02.005
[15]	B. L. Sprague, V. McLaughlin, J. M. Hampton, P. A. Newcomb and A. Trentham-Dietz, “Disease-Free Survival by Treatment after a DCIS Diagnosis in a Population-Based Cohort Study,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 141, No. 1, 2013, pp. 145-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2670-3
[16]	S. E. Pinder, C. Duggan, I. O. Ellis, J. Cuzick, J. F. Forbes, H. Bishop, I. S. Fentiman, W. D. George and UK Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research (UKCCCR) Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) Working Party, “A New Pathological System for Grading DCIS with Improved Prediction of Local Recurrence: Results from the UKCCCR/ANZ DCIS Trial,” British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 103, No. 1, 2010, pp. 94-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605718
[17]	M. J. Silverstein, “The University of Southern California/Van Nuys Prognostic Index for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast,” The American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 186, No. 4, 2003, pp. 337-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00265-4
[18]	L. J. Solin, R. Gray, F. L. Baehner, S. M. Butler, L. L. Hughes, C. Yoshizawa, D. B. Cherbavaz, S. Shak, D. L. Page, G. W. Sledge Jr., N. E. Davidson, J. N. Ingle, E. A. Perez, W. C. Wood, J. A. Sparano and S. Badve, “A Multigene Expression Assay to Predict Local Recurrence Risk for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 105, No. 10, 2013, pp. 701-710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt067
[19]	S. B. Motwani, S. Goyal, M. S. Moran, A. Chhabra and B. G. Haffty, “Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Treated with Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiotherapy: A Comparison with ECOG Study 5194,” Cancer, Vol. 117, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1156-1162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25623