Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 111, Issue 3, pp 531–540 | Cite as

Risk of second primary breast cancers among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

  • Kaire Innos
  • Pamela L. Horn-Ross
Epidemiology

Abstract

Background The diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has become increasingly common, but it is not clear which factors predict the development of subsequent breast cancers in these women. The risk of second primary breast tumors was examined in a large, ethnically diverse population-based cohort of women with DCIS. Methods California Cancer Registry data on 23,547 women with first DCIS diagnosed in 1988–1999 were examined to estimate the incidence of second DCIS and invasive breast cancer relative to women in the general population. Relative risks were calculated using Poisson regression to estimate which women with DCIS were likely to develop a second DCIS or invasive breast cancer. Results Compared to the general population, women with DCIS had significantly increased risk of contralateral DCIS (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 4.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7–4.7), contralateral invasive cancer (SIR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.5), ipsilateral DCIS (SIR 4.2, 95% CI 3.5–5.0), and ipsilateral invasive cancer (SIR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4–2.1). Variation by race/ethnicity, age, time, and tumor and treatment characteristics were observed. Black women were 1.9-fold more likely to develop ipsilateral invasive cancer than white women. Young age at onset, comedo histology and having received partial mastectomy only or having neither surgical nor radiation treatment for first DCIS were predictive of ipsilateral cancers. Conclusions Close follow-up of women with DCIS is warranted, particularly those who are Black or diagnosed at young age. Investigations should continue to clarify the underlying mechanisms of racial, age, and other differences in second cancer risk.

Keywords

Breast cancer Ductal carcinoma in situ DCIS Second primary cancers Race/ethnicity Radiation therapy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by contract SEER-N01-PC-65107 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute and by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (target funding SF0940026s07). Cancer incidence data have been collected under a subcontract with the Public Health Institute. The subcontract is supported by the California Department of Health Services as part of its statewide cancer reporting program, mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 103875 and 103885. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and no endorsement of the State of California, Department of Health Services or the Public Health Institute is intended or should be inferred. The authors thank Mark Allen for technical support.

References

  1. 1.
    Schwartz GF, Solin LJ, Olivotto IA et al (2000) The Consensus Conference on the treatment of in situ ductal carcinoma of the breast, April 22–25, 1999. Hum Pathol 31:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS et al (2006) Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988–2001. Cancer 106:2104–2112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ottesen GL, Graversen HP, Blichert-Toft M et al (2000) Carcinoma in situ of the female breast. 10 year follow-up results of a prospective nationwide study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 62:197–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kestin LL, Goldstein NS, Lacerna MD et al (2000) Factors associated with local recurrence of mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ in patients given breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 88:596–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Solin LJ, Kurtz J, Fourquet A et al (1996) Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol 14:754–763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wärnberg F, Bergh J, Holmberg L (1999) Prognosis in women with a carcinoma in situ of the breast: a population-based study in Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:769–774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C et al (1993) Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 328:1581–1586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris EE, Schultz DJ, Peters CA et al (2000) Relationship of family history and outcome after breast conservation therapy in women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:933–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 19:2263–2271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Habel LA, Daling JR, Newcomb PA et al (1998) Risk of recurrence after ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7:689–696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cutuli B, Cohen-Solal-Le Nir C, De Lafontan B et al (2001) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast results of conservative and radical treatments in 716 patients. Eur J Cancer 37:2365–2372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen Y, Thompson W, Semenciw R et al (1999) Epidemiology of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:855–861PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komoike Y, Akiyama F, Iino Y et al (2006) Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving treatment for early breast cancer: risk factors and impact on distant metastases. Cancer 106:35–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DiPaola RS, Orel SG, Fowble BL (1994) Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence following conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Oncology (Williston Park) 8:59–68Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claus EB, Petruzella S, Matloff E et al (2005) Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA 293:964–969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Syrjakoski K, Vahteristo P, Eerola H et al (2000) Population-based study of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in 1035 unselected Finnish breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1529–1531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peto J, Collins N, Barfoot R et al (1999) Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations in patients with early-onset breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:943–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D (2001) Breast carcinoma in situ: risk factors and screening patterns. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1811–1817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K et al (2000) Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results program. Arch Intern Med 160:953–958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Idvall I, Ringberg A, Anderson H et al (2005) Histopathological and cell biological characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast—a comparison between the primary DCIS and subsequent ipsilateral and contralateral tumours. Breast 14:290–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L et al (2001) Histological type and marker expression of the primary tumour compared with its local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer 84:539–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I et al (2003) Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:1692–1702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waldman FM, DeVries S, Chew KL et al (2000) Chromosomal alterations in ductal carcinomas in situ and their in situ recurrences. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:313–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA et al (2001) Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation: long-term outcome and prognostic significance of patient age and margin status. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:991–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    California Cancer Registry, August 2001 Submission (2001) California Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance Section, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kwong SL, Perkins CI, Morris CR et al (2001) Cancer in California: 1988–1999. California Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance Section, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stewart SL, Swallen KC, Glaser SL et al (1999) Comparison of methods for classifying hispanic ethnicity in a population-based cancer registry. Am J Epidemiol 149:1063–1071PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Data Standards and Quality Control Unit, California Cancer Registry (2000) Cancer Reporting in California: Abstracting and Coding Procedures for Hospitals, vol 1, 5th edn. California Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance Section, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Habel LA, Moe RE, Daling JR et al (1997) Risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Surg 225:69–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D et al (2003) The risk of a contralateral breast cancer among women diagnosed with ductal and lobular breast carcinoma in situ: data from the Connecticut Tumor Registry. Breast 12:451–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Soerjomataram I, Louwman WJ, van der Sangen MJ et al (2006) Increased risk of second malignancies after in situ breast carcinoma in a population-based registry. Br J Cancer 95:393–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wärnberg F, Yuen J, Holmberg L (2000). Risk of subsequent invasive breast cancer after breast carcinoma in situ. Lancet 355:724–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Adams-Cameron M, Gilliland FD, Hunt WC et al (1999) Trends in incidence and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ in Hispanic, American Indian, and non-Hispanic white women in New Mexico, 1973–1994. Cancer 85:1084–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Snipes K (1996) Incidence and mortality of female breast cancer, 1988–1993. In: Morris C, Wright W (eds) Breast cancer in California. California Department of Health Services, Cancer Surveillance Section, Sacramento, CA, pp 5–22Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    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 56:1038–1045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chen VW, Correa P, Kurman RJ et al (1994) Histological characteristics of breast carcinoma in blacks and whites. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 3:127–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hunter CP, Redmond CK, Chen VW et al (1993) Breast cancer: factors associated with stage at diagnosis in black and white women. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1129–1137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jones BA, Kasl SV, Curnen MG et al (1995) Can mammography screening explain the race difference in stage at diagnosis of breast cancer? Cancer 15:2103–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Haffty BG, Silber A, Matloff E et al (2006) Racial differences in the incidence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a cohort of early onset breast cancer patients: African American compared to white women. J Med Genet 43:133–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vaittinen P, Hemminki K (2000) Risk factors and age-incidence relationships for contralateral breast cancer. Int J Cancer 88:998–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Harvey EB, Brinton LA (1985) Second cancer following cancer of the breast in Connecticut, 1935–82. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 68:99–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Storm HH, Jensen OM (1986) Risk of contralateral breast cancer in Denmark 1943–80. Br J Cancer 54:483–492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Horn PL, Thompson WD (1988) Risk of contralateral breast cancer: associations with factors related to initial breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 128:309–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bernstein JL, Thompson WD, Risch N et al (1992) Risk factors predicting the incidence of second primary breast cancer among women diagnosed with a first primary breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 136:925–936PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Zee KJ, Liberman L, Samli B et al (1999) Long term follow-up of women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery: the effect of age. Cancer 86:1757–1767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bernstein JL, Thompson WD, Risch N et al (1992) The genetic epidemiology of second primary breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 136:937–948PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Verhoog LC, Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C et al (2000) Contralateral breast cancer risk is influenced by the age at onset in BRCA1-associated breast cancer. Br J Cancer 83:384–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Szelei-Stevens KA, Kuske RR, Yantsos VA et al (2000) The influence of young age and positive family history of breast cancer on the prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision with or without radiation therapy or by mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:943–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Skinner KA, Silberman H, Sposto R et al (2001) Palpable breast cancers are inherently different from nonpalpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol 8:705–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kestin LL, Goldstein NS, Martinez AA et al (2000) Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ treated with conservative surgery with or without radiation therapy: patterns of failure and 10-year results. Ann Surg 231:235–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kollias J, Ellis IO, Elston CW et al (1999) Clinical and histological predictors of contralateral breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 25:584–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ringberg A, Nordgren H, Thorstensson S et al (2007) Histopathological risk factors for ipsilateral breast events after breast conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast–results from the Swedish randomised trial. Eur J Cancer 43:291–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL et al (2006) Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853–a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol 24:3381–3387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Harvey EB, Brinton LA (1985) Second cancer following cancer of the breast in Connecticut, 1935–82. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 68:99–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fisher B, Land S, Mamounas E et al (2001) Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: an update of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience. Semin Oncol 28:400–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Murakami R, Hiyama T, Hanai A et al (1987) Second primary cancers following female breast cancer in Osaka, Japan–a population-based cohort study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 17:293–302PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsNational Institute for Health DevelopmentTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Estonian Centre of Behavioural and Health SciencesTartu-TallinnEstonia
  3. 3.Northern California Cancer CenterFremontUSA

Personalised recommendations