Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): the Importance of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO)

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are an optimal method for assessing quality of life (QOL), including physical and psychosocial health. This review summarizes PROs frequently assessed in the setting of a DCIS diagnosis.

Recent Findings

Health-related QOL has generally been found to be modestly affected in women with DCIS and similar to women with invasive breast cancer. Several studies reported a substantial negative impact on sexual health and body image, including some differences based on surgery type. Some patients experience pain after treatment, although many physical symptoms resolve. The prevalence of anxiety and depression varied based on assessment timing, with symptoms improving overtime. Women with DCIS often overestimate the risks associated both with DCIS and invasive cancer.

Summary

PROs provide critical information regarding the experiences of women following a DCIS diagnosis. Continued inclusion of PROs in clinical trials is warranted, further informing treatment decisions and adequately preparing patients for what to expect following treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.

    American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2019-2020. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2019-2020.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2020.

  2. 2.

    Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P. Breast Cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):888–96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Worni M, Akushevich I, Greenup R, Sarma D, Ryser MD, Myers ER, et al. Trends in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(12):djv263. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv263.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rutter CE, Park HS, Killelea BK, Evans SB. Growing use of mastectomy for ductal carcinoma-in situ of the breast among Young women in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(7):2378–86. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4334-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Miller ME, Muhsen S, Olcese C, Patil S, Morrow M, Van Zee KJ. Contralateral breast Cancer risk in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: is it high enough to justify bilateral mastectomy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2030;24(10):2889–97. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5931-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ganz PA, Petersen L, Bower JE, Crespi CM. Impact of adjuvant endocrine therapy on quality of life and symptoms: observational data over 12 months from the mind-body study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(8):816–24. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.3866.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Young-Afat DA, Gregorowitsch ML, van den Bongard DH, Burgmans I, van der Pol CC, Witkamp AJ, et al. Breast Edema Following Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiotherapy: Patient-Reported Prevalence, Determinants, and Effect on Health-Related Quality of Life. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019;3(2):pkz011. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkz011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, Sutradhar R, Baehner FL, Miller DP, et al. Multigene Expression Assay and Benefit of Radiotherapy After Breast Conservation in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw256.

  9. 9.

    Punglia RS, Schnitt SJ, Weeks JC. Treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ after excision: would a prophylactic paradigm be more appropriate? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(20):1527–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt256.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    •• Partridge A, Adloff K, Blood E, Dees EC, Kaelin C, Golshan M, et al. Risk perceptions and psychosocial outcomes of women with ductal carcinoma in situ: longitudinal results from a cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(4):243–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn010. Prospective study of women with DCIS that found a substantial proportion of women overestimate breast cancer specific risks.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lopez ME, Kaplan CP, Napoles AM, Hwang ES, Livaudais JC, Karliner LS. Satisfaction with treatment decision-making and treatment regret among Latinas and non-Latina whites with DCIS. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(1):83–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Parikh AR, Kaplan CP, Burke NJ, Livaudais-Toman J, Hwang ES, Karliner LS. Ductal carcinoma in situ: knowledge of associated risks and prognosis among Latina and non-Latina white women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141(2):261–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2676-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes - harnessing Patients' voices to improve clinical care. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(2):105–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1611252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    •• Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, et al. Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):557–65. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830. In this randomized controlled trial that included PRO monitoring, better HRQOL was seen with collection of PROs. Patients undergoing PRO assessment also had fewer hospitalizations, fewer emergency department visits and better survival.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kennedy F, Harcourt D, Rumsey N, White P. The psychosocial impact of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): a longitudinal prospective study. Breast. 2010;19(5):382–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2010.03.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sackey H, Sandelin K, Frisell J, Wickman M, Brandberg Y. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Long-term follow-up of health-related quality of life, emotional reactions and body image. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(8):756–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.06.016.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    • Hart V, Sprague BL, Lakoski SG, Hampton JM, Newcomb PA, Gangnon RE, et al. Trends in Health-Related Quality of Life After a Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(12):1323–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.7281. This study compared patients with history of DCIS to controls and found similar QOL several years after diagnosis, though metal QOL was mental QOL was marginally worse among women with DCIS compared to women less than two years from their diagnosis as well as compared to healthy controls.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Nekhlyudov L, Kroenke CH, Jung I, Holmes MD, Colditz GA. Prospective changes in quality of life after ductal carcinoma-in-situ: results from the Nurses' health study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2822–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.6219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gregorowitsch ML, van den Bongard H, Young-Afat DA, Pignol JP, van Gils CH, May AM, et al. Severe depression more common in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ than early-stage invasive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;167(1):205–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4495-y.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Jeffe DB, Perez M, Liu Y, Collins KK, Aft RL, Schootman M. Quality of life over time in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ, early-stage invasive breast cancer, and age-matched controls. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(1):379–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2048-y.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lauzier S, Maunsell E, Levesque P, Mondor M, Robert J, Robidoux A, et al. Psychological distress and physical health in the year after diagnosis of DCIS or invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(3):685–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0477-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    van Gestel YR, Voogd AC, Vingerhoets AJ, Mols F, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, van Driel OJ, et al. A comparison of quality of life, disease impact and risk perception in women with invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(3):549–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.10.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bruce J, Thornton AJ, Powell R, Johnston M, Wells M, Heys SD, et al. Psychological, surgical, and sociodemographic predictors of pain outcomes after breast cancer surgery: a population-based cohort study. Pain. 2014;155(2):232–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.09.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Spivey TL, Gutowski ED, Zinboonyahgoon N, King TA, Dominici L, Edwards RR, et al. Chronic pain after breast surgery: a prospective, Observational Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2917–24. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6644-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    • Mertz BG, Duriaud HM, Kroman N, Andersen KG. Pain, sensory disturbances and psychological distress are common sequelae after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a cross-sectional study. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(5):724–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2017.1295167. One third of women with DCIS surveyed a median of 2 years post-surgery had current breast, side of chest, axilla, or arm pain.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rosenberg S, Hendrix L, Schreiber K, Thompson A, Bedrosian I, Hughes K et al. The Patient-reported Outcomes after Routine Treatment of Atypical Lesions (PORTAL) Study: Pain, psychosocial wellbeing, and quality of life among women undergoing guideline concordant care for DCIS vs. active surveillance for DCIS, and standard management of other atypical lesions. 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium Poster Presentation.

  27. 27.

    Wang L, Guyatt GH, Kennedy SA, Romerosa B, Kwon HY, Kaushal A, et al. Predictors of persistent pain after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. CMAJ. 2016;188(14):E352–E61. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.151276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Schreiber KL, Martel MO, Shnol H, Shaffer JR, Greco C, Viray N, et al. Persistent pain in postmastectomy patients: comparison of psychophysical, medical, surgical, and psychosocial characteristics between patients with and without pain. Pain. 2013;154(5):660–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.11.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Edwards RR, Mensing G, Cahalan C, Greenbaum S, Narang S, Belfer I, et al. Alteration in pain modulation in women with persistent pain after lumpectomy: influence of catastrophizing. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2013;46(1):30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.06.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    •• King MT, Winters ZE, Olivotto IA, Spillane AJ, Chua BH, Saunders C, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in ductal carcinoma in situ: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2017;71:95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.09.035. This systematic review included 17 quantitative and qualitative studies published through 2015. Quality of the studies varied; most did not evaluate the differential effects of treatment. The available evidence at the time of this review suggest that while there may be early deficits following diagnosis, for most women with DCIS, quality of life and psychosocial health recovers to normal within a year.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    De Groef A, Van Kampen M, Tieto E, Schonweger P, Christiaens MR, Neven P, et al. Arm lymphoedema and upper limb impairments in sentinel node-negative breast cancer patients: a one year follow-up study. Breast. 2016;29:102–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.07.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT, Giron GL, Sampson MR, Brockway JP, et al. Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: objective measurements. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5213–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.16.3725.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Leysen L, Beckwee D, Nijs J, Pas R, Bilterys T, Vermeir S, et al. Risk factors of pain in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(12):3607–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3824-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Basen-Engquist K, Hughes D, Perkins H, Shinn E, Taylor CC. Dimensions of physical activity and their relationship to physical and emotional symptoms in breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2008;2(4):253–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-008-0067-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ruddy KJ, Meyer ME, Giobbie-Hurder A, Emmons KM, Weeks JC, Winer EP, et al. Long-term risk perceptions of women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Oncologist. 2013;18(4):362–8. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0376.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    De Morgan S, Redman S, D'Este C, Rogers K. Knowledge, satisfaction with information, decisional conflict and psychological morbidity amongst women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(1):62–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bluman LG, Borstelmann NA, Rimer BK, Iglehart JD, Winer EP. Knowledge, satisfaction, and perceived cancer risk among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2001;10(6):589–98. https://doi.org/10.1089/15246090152543175.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Pidduck W, Wan BA, Zhang L, Rakovitch E, Chow S, Chan S, et al. Psychological morbidity in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ compared with women with early breast cancer receiving radiotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2019:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05034-2.

  39. 39.

    Bober SL, Giobbie-Hurder A, Emmons KM, Winer E, Partridge A. Psychosexual functioning and body image following a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Sex Med. 2013;10(2):370–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02852.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Fosh B, Hainsworth A, Beumer J, Howes B, McLeay W, Eaton M. Cosmesis outcomes for sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(4):1271–5. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3441-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Liu Y, Perez M, Schootman M, Aft RL, Gillanders WE, Ellis MJ, et al. A longitudinal study of factors associated with perceived risk of recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ and early-stage invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124(3):835–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-0912-1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Sanders JB, Loftin A, Seda JS, Ehlenbeck C. Psychosocial distress affecting patients with ductal carcinoma in situ compared to patients with early invasive breast cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18(6):684–8. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.CJON.684-688.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(19):1436–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr318.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Buscariollo DL, Cronin AM, Borstelmann NA, Punglia RS. Impact of pre-diagnosis depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life on treatment choice for ductal carcinoma in situ and stage I breast cancer in older women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173(3):709–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5006-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, Frank E, Pinto D, Basila D, et al. 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. 2019;9(3):e026797. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026797.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L, van Leeuwen-Stok AE, Skinner VP, Dif N, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, Wallis M, Bartlett JM, Brookes C, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(16):2296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kim C, Liang L, Wright FC, Hong NJL, Groot G, Helyer L, et al. Interventions are needed to support patient-provider decision-making for DCIS: a scoping review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168(3):579–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4613-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Dr. Rosenberg is supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K01HS023680), and funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shoshana M. Rosenberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Non-Invasive Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dominici, L.S., Rosenberg, S.M. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): the Importance of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO). Curr Breast Cancer Rep 12, 90–97 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-020-00363-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • DCIS
  • Quality of life
  • Physical well-being,
  • Psychosocial well-being
  • Risk perceptions