Advertisement

Long-term outcomes of breast-conserving therapy for women with ductal carcinoma in situ

  • Laura E. G. WarrenEmail author
  • Yu-Hui Chen
  • Lia M. Halasz
  • Jane E. Brock
  • Alexander Capuco
  • Rinaa S. Punglia
  • Julia S. Wong
  • Mehra Golshan
  • Jennifer R. Bellon
Clinical trial

Abstract

Purpose

Improved imaging, surgical techniques, and pathologic evaluation likely have decreased local recurrence rates for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We present long-term outcomes of a large single-institution series after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 245 women treated for DCIS with BCS and RT between 2001 and 2007. Competing risk analysis was used to calculate local recurrence (LR) as a first event with the development of a second non-breast malignancy, contralateral breast cancer, and death as competing first events.

Results

At a median follow-up of 10.6 years, 4 patients had a LR (2 DCIS, 2 invasive) as a first event with a cumulative LR incidence of 0.0% and 1.5% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Most patients had > 2 mm margins (90%), specimen radiographs (93%), and received a tumor bed boost (99%). The majority (60%) of patients with hormone receptor-positive disease received adjuvant endocrine therapy. Ten-year cumulative incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) was 7.9%, second non-breast malignancy was 4.5%, and death unrelated to breast cancer was 3.5%. Family history, age at diagnosis, and receipt of endocrine therapy were not significantly associated with the development of CBC (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions

With mature follow-up, our rates of local recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for DCIS remain very low (1.5% at 10 years). The incidence of CBC was higher than the LR incidence. Predisposing factors for the development of CBC are worthy of investigation.

Keywords

Breast cancer Ductal carcinoma in situ Outcomes Breast-conserving therapy Radiation therapy 

Notes

Funding

There was no specific funding supporting this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The DF/HCC institutional review board approved this study and waived the requirement for informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B et al (2011) Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 103:478–488.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Darby S, Correa C et al (2010) Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq039 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCormick B, Winter K, Hudis C et al (2015) RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. J Clin Oncol 33:709–715.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hiramatsu H, Bornstein BA, Recht A et al (1995) Local recurrence after conservative surgery and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: possible importance of family history. Cancer J Sci Am 1:55–61Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halasz LM, Sreedhara M, Chen Y-H et al (2012) Improved outcomes of breast-conserving therapy for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:e581–e586.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ et al (2016) 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. J Clin Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.68.3573 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marinovich ML, Azizi L, Macaskill P et al (2016) 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 23:3811–3821.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5446-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L et al (2001) Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma-in situ: analysis of European organization for research and treatment of cancer trial 10853. J Clin Oncol 19:2263–2271.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.8.2263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fisher ER, Costantino J, Fisher B et al (1995) Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) Protocol B-17. Intraductal carcinoma (ductal carcinoma in situ). The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Collaborating Investigators. Cancer 75:1310–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCormick JT, Keleher AJ, Tikhomirov VB et al (2004) Analysis of the use of specimen mammography in breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 188:433–436.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.06.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin AA et al (2007) Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 14:1458–1471.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9236-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solin LJ, Gray R, Hughes LL et al (2015) Surgical excision without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 12-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study. J Clin Oncol 33:3938–3944.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.60.8588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zujewski JA, Harlan LC, Morrell DM, Stevens JL (2011) Ductal carcinoma in situ: trends in treatment over time in the US. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127:251–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1198-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allred DC, Anderson SJ, Paik S et al (2012) 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 30:1268–1273.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.34.0141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE et al (2011) 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 12:21–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70266-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Margolese R, Cecchini RS, Julian TB et al (2016) Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet 387:849–856.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01168-X.Primary CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moran MS, Zhao Y, Ma S et al (2017) Association of radiotherapy boost for ductal carcinoma in situ with local control after whole-breast radiotherapy. JAMA Oncol 20:292–298.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6948 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donker M, Litière S, Werutsky G et al (2013) 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. J Clin Oncol 31:4054–4059.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.5077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Subhedar P, Olcese C, Patil S et al (2015) Decreasing recurrence rates for ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 2996 women treated with breast-conserving surgery over 30 years. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3273–3281.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4740-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kong I, Narod SA, Taylor C et al (2014) Age at diagnosis predicts local recurrence in women treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based outcomes analysis. Curr Oncol 21:e96–e104.  https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA et al (2005) Long-term outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 103:1137–1146.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lester SC, Bose S, Chen Y et al (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:15–25Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gao X, Fisher SG, Emami B (2003) Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:1038–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Broët P, de la Rochefordière A, Scholl SM et al (1995) Contralateral breast cancer: annual incidence and risk parameters. J Clin Oncol 13:1578–1583.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1995.13.7.1578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vaittinen P, Hemminki K (2000) Risk factors and age-incidence relationships for contralateral breast cancer. Int J Cancer 88:998–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu Y, Colditz GA, Gehlert S, Goodman M (2014) Racial disparities in risk of second breast tumors after ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148:163–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3151-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chowdhury M, Euhus D, Onega T et al (2017) A model for individualized risk prediction of contralateral breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 161:153–160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4039-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Forbes JF, Sestak I, Howell A et al (2016) Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387:866–873.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01129-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL et al (2013) A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 105:701–710.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W et al (2017) Multigene expression assay and benefit of radiotherapy after breast conservation in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bremer T, Whitworth PW, Patel R et al (2018) A biological signature for breast ductal carcinoma in situ to predict radiotherapy benefit and assess recurrence risk. Clin Cancer Res 24:5895–5901.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura E. G. Warren
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yu-Hui Chen
    • 2
  • Lia M. Halasz
    • 3
  • Jane E. Brock
    • 4
  • Alexander Capuco
    • 1
  • Rinaa S. Punglia
    • 1
  • Julia S. Wong
    • 1
  • Mehra Golshan
    • 5
  • Jennifer R. Bellon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics and Computational BiologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations