Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare upgrade rates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and identify patient, imaging, and pathological features associated with upgrade risk.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of 318 women (mean 59 years, range 37–89) with screening-detected DCIS from 2007 to 2011 (DM group) and from 2013 to 2016 (DBT group). Comparisons made between DM and DBT groups using the unpaired t test and chi-square test include detection rates of DCIS, upgrade rates to invasive cancer, and pathological features of DCIS and upgraded cases. Patient, imaging, and pathological features associated with upgrade were also determined. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

There was no significant difference in detection rates of DCIS between DM and DBT groups (0.9 versus 1.0 per 1000 examinations, p = 0.45). Upgrade rates of DCIS to invasive cancer in DM and DBT groups were similar (17.3% versus 16.8%, p = 0.90), despite significant differences in pathological features of DCIS between DM and DBT groups (including nuclear grade, comedonecrosis, and progesterone receptor status [p ≤ 0.01]). Among upgraded cases, a higher proportion were high-grade invasive cancers with DBT (36.7% versus 9.5%, p = 0.03). In both groups, ultrasound-guided (versus stereotactic) biopsy was associated with higher upgrade risk (p ≤ 0.03).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in detection rates or upgrade rates of DCIS on DM versus DBT; however, upgraded cases were more likely to be high grade with DBT, suggesting possible differences in tumor biology between cancers with DM and DBT. In both DM and DBT groups, biopsy modality was associated with upgrade risk.

Key Points

• Detection rates and upgrade rates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are similar.

• A higher proportion of upgraded cases were high-grade invasive cancers with DBT than DM, suggesting possible differences in tumor biology between cancers that are detected with DM and DBT.

• With both DM and DBT, ultrasound-guided biopsy (versus stereotactic biopsy) was associated with a higher risk of upgrade.

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

Abbreviations

DBT:

Digital breast tomosynthesis

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

DM:

Digital mammography

ER:

Estrogen receptor

HER2:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

IDC:

Invasive ductal carcinoma

ILC:

Invasive lobular carcinoma

PR:

Progesterone receptor

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2019) How common is breast cancer? Available via https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2019

  2. Shehata M, Grimm L, Ballantyne N et al (2019) Ductal carcinoma in situ: current concepts in biology, imaging, and treatment. J Breast Imaging 1:166–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Goodman SN, Nolten A, Askin FB, Gatewood OM (2001) Nonpalpable breast cancer: percutaneous diagnosis with 11- and 8-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy devices. Radiology 219:793–796

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218:497–502

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wahedna Y, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Blamey RW, Geraghty JG (2001) Mammographic size of ductal carcinoma in situ does not predict the presence of an invasive focus. Eur J Cancer 37:459–462

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, Sweetland H, Stevens G, Mansel RE (2006) Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ?: analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 98:311–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S et al (2011) Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology 260:119–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Marinovich ML et al (2011) Accuracy of a preoperative model for predicting invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ on vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1364–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim J, Han W, Lee JW et al (2012) Factors associated with upstaging from ductal carcinoma in situ following core needle biopsy to invasive cancer in subsequent surgical excision. Breast 21:641–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schulz S, Sinn P, Golatta M et al (2013) Prediction of underestimated invasiveness in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast on percutaneous biopsy as rationale for recommending concurrent sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast 22:537–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lamb LR, Lehman CD, Oseni TO, Bahl M (2019) Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at breast MRI: predictors of upgrade to invasive carcinoma. Acad Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.09.025

  12. Lamb LR, Kim G, Oseni TO, Bahl M (2020) Noncalcified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): rate and predictors of upgrade to invasive carcinoma. Acad Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.02.011

  13. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L et al (2015) 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 51:1497–1510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L et al (2015) Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer 51:2296–2303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T et al (2019) The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open 9:e026797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. NIPH Clinical Trials Search (2017) Single-arm confirmatory trial of endocrine therapy alone for estrogen receptor-positive, low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (JCOG1505, LORETTA trial). Available via https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=UMIN000028298. Accessed 27 Dec 2019

  17. Bijker N, Donker M, Wesseling J, den Heeten GJ, Rutgers EJ (2013) Is DCIS breast cancer, and how do I treat it? Curr Treat Options Oncol 14:75–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR (1989) Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 172:235–241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L et al (2016) Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology 281:54–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Vijapura CA, McCarthy AM, Lehman CD (2019) Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting. Eur Radiol 29:477–484

  24. Doria MT, Maesaka JY, Soares de Azevedo Neto R, de Barros N, Baracat EC, Filassi JR (2018) Development of a model to predict invasiveness in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by percutaneous biopsy-original study and critical evaluation of the literature. Clin Breast Cancer 18:e805–e812

  25. Marques LC, Marta GN, de Andrade JZ, Andrade D, de Barros ACSD, Andrade FEM (2019) Is it possible to predict underestimation in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast? Yes, using a simple score! Eur J Surg Oncol 45:1152–1155

  26. Bahl M, Gaffney S, McCarthy AM, Lowry KP, Dang PA, Lehman CD (2018) Breast cancer characteristics associated with 2D digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for screening-detected and interval cancers. Radiology 287:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lamb LR, Bahl M, Hughes KS, Lehman CD (2018) Pathologic upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions on digital two-dimensional vs tomosynthesis mammography. J Am Coll Surg 226:858–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. National Cancer Institute (2019) TMIST (Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial). Available via https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/clinical-trials/nci-supported/tmist. Accessed 27 Dec 2019

  29. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL (2003) Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:941–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bahl M, Maunglay M, D'Alessandro HA, Lehman CD (2019) Comparison of upright digital breast tomosynthesis-guided versus prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 290:298–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This abstract was submitted for oral presentation at the American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Annual Meeting (Chicago, IL, May 2020). Dr. Geunwon Kim was awarded the ARRS Melissa Rosado de Christenson Award.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (K08CA241365, PI: Dr. Manisha Bahl), the Agfa HealthCare/Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Research Scholar Grant (PI: Dr. Manisha Bahl), and the Electronic Space Systems Corporation (ESSCO)-MGH Breast Cancer Research Fund (PI: Dr. Manisha Bahl and Dr. Tawakalitu O. Oseni). The sponsors had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; or, in the decision to submit the article for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or any other organizations listed above.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Division of Breast Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, WAC 240, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Geunwon Kim, Peter G. Mikhael & Manisha Bahl

  2. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Tawakalitu O. Oseni

Authors
  1. Geunwon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter G. Mikhael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tawakalitu O. Oseni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manisha Bahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manisha Bahl.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Manisha Bahl, MD, MPH.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

We have submitted or previously published manuscripts in which there is overlap of patients with this study:

  • Noncalcified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): rate and predictors of upgrade to invasive carcinoma (published in Academic Radiology). In this published study, we report on 53 of the patients included in the current study. The study focuses on the upgrade rates of noncalcified DCIS detected on screening and diagnostic mammography and features associated with upgrade risk.

  • Do eligibility criteria for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) active surveillance trials identify patients at low risk for upgrade to invasive carcinoma? (published in Annals of Surgical Oncology). In this published study, we report on 858 patients, 318 of whom are included in the current study. The purpose of the study is to determine upgrade rates of DCIS at needle biopsy to invasive carcinoma at surgery among women who meet eligibility criteria for active surveillance trials.

  • Breast cancer characteristics associated with 2D digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for screening-detected and interval cancers (published in Radiology). In this published study, we report on 948 breast cancers (January 2009–February 2011 and January 2013–February 2015), 184 of which are included in the current study. The purpose of the study is to compare the rates and tumor characteristics of screening-detected and interval cancers with digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

    We believe that the current manuscript is distinct with regard to its objectives, materials and methods, results, and conclusions. In this study, we compare upgrade rates of DCIS on DM versus DBT and identify features that are associated with upgrade risk. There are no published studies, to our knowledge, on upgrade rates of DCIS, characteristics of the upgraded cancers, or predictors of upgrade in the modern era of DBT.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, G., Mikhael, P.G., Oseni, T.O. et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade. Eur Radiol 30, 6089–6098 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07021-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07021-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation