Advertisement

Rationalization and regionalization of treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

  • Grace L. Smith
    Affiliations
    Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

    Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
    Search for articles by this author
  • Benjamin D. Smith
    Affiliations
    Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
    Search for articles by this author
  • Bruce G. Haffty
    Correspondence
    Reprint requests to: Bruce G. Haffty, M.D., Radiation Oncology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-2681. Tel: (732) 235-5203; Fax: (732) 235-7493
    Affiliations
    Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

    Department of Radiation Oncology, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey

    Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
    Search for articles by this author
      Purpose: In ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast, conservative surgery plus radiotherapy (CS+RT) decreases risk of recurrence compared with CS alone. Although nearly one third of patients are reported as treated with CS alone, it is unclear whether this potentially “undertreated” group represents high- or low-risk patients. We evaluated national patterns of DCIS treatment from 1996 to 2001 by patient risk profile.
      Methods and Materials: In a retrospective cohort of DCIS patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, patients were risk stratified on the basis of age at diagnosis, tumor grade, tumor size, and comedo histology. Treatment included CS alone, CS+RT, or mastectomy. Patients were followed for the development of ipsilateral invasive or in situ event.
      Results: Of 14,202 patients, 19% were low-risk, 46% moderate-risk, and 35% high-risk. A total of 28% received CS alone, 40% CS+RT, and 31% mastectomy. Overall, only 17% of high-risk patients but 44% of low-risk patients received CS alone (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, older age, smaller tumor size, and treatment in San Francisco/Los Angeles predicted treatment with CS alone (p < 0.01). Yet despite the tendency to receive CS alone, patients in San Francisco/Los Angeles did not experience an increased risk of ipsilateral event (hazard ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.55–1.12).
      Conclusion: Patient risk profiles rationally affect treatment choice in DCIS patients, and the vast majority of high-risk patients do not receive CS alone. Additional follow up is needed to determine whether geographic variation in care influences long-term outcomes.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ASTRO Member Login
      ASTRO Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Fisher B.
        • Costantino J.
        • Redmond C.
        • et al.
        Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 1581-1586
        • Fisher B.
        • Land S.
        • Mamounas E.
        • et al.
        Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in situ.
        Semin Oncol. 2001; 28: 400-418
        • Julien J.P.
        • Bijker N.
        • Fentiman I.S.
        • et al.
        • EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group
        Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ.
        Lancet. 2000; 355: 528-533
        • Baxter N.N.
        • Virnig B.A.
        • Durham S.B.
        • et al.
        Trends in the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96: 443-448
        • Silverstein M.
        An argument against routine use of radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ.
        Oncology (Huntingt). 2003; 17: 1511-1533
        • de Mascarel I.
        • Bonichon F.
        • MacGrogan G.
        • et al.
        Application of the van nuys prognostic index in a retrospective series of 367 ductal carcinomas in situ of the breast examined by serial macroscopic sectioning.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000; 61: 151-159
        • Silverstein M.J.
        • Lagios M.D.
        • Groshen S.
        • et al.
        The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
        N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 1455-1461
        • Cornfield D.B.
        • Palazzo J.P.
        • Schwartz G.F.
        • et al.
        The prognostic significance of multiple morphologic features and biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
        Cancer. 2004; 100: 2317-2327
        • Wong J.S.
        • Kaelin C.M.
        • Troyan S.L.
        • et al.
        Prospective study of wide excision alone for carcinoma in situ of the breast.
        J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 1031-1036
      1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER). About SEER. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://www.seer.cancer.gov/about/. [Last accessed: January 8, 2005].

        • Vicini F.A.
        • Recht A.
        Age at diagnosis and outcome for women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ of the breast.
        J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 2736-2744
        • Kerlikowske K.
        • Molinaro A.
        • Cha I.
        • et al.
        Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 1692-1702
        • Lagios M.D.
        • Margolin F.R.
        • Westdahl P.R.
        • et al.
        Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence.
        Cancer. 1989; 63: 618-624
        • Houghton J.
        • George W.D.
        • Cuzick J.
        • et al.
        Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
        Lancet. 2003; 362: 95-102
        • Morrow M.
        The certainties and the uncertainties of ductal carcinoma in situ.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96: 424-425
        • Gotzsche P.C.
        Re.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96 (author reply 1259–1260): 1257
        • Schwartz G.F.
        • Lagios M.D.
        • Silverstein M.J.
        Re.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96 (author reply 1259–1260): 1258-1259
        • Farrow D.C.
        • Hunt W.C.
        • Samet J.M.
        Geographic variation in the treatment of localized breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 1992; 326: 1097-1101
        • Nattinger A.B.
        • Gottlieb M.S.
        • Veum J.
        • et al.
        Geographic variation in the use of breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 1992; 326: 1102-1107
        • Lee-Feldstein A.
        • Anton-Culver H.
        • Feldstein P.J.
        Treatment differences and other prognostic factors related to breast cancer survival. Delivery systems and medical outcomes.
        Jama. 1994; 271: 1163-1168
        • Gregorio D.I.
        • Kulldorff M.
        • Barry L.
        • et al.
        Geographical differences in primary therapy for early-stage breast cancer.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2001; 8: 844-849
        • Goel V.
        • Olivotto I.
        • Hislop T.G.
        • et al.
        • British Columbia/Ontario Working Group
        Patterns of initial management of node-negative breast cancer in two Canadian provinces.
        Cmaj. 1997; 156: 25-35
        • Ceilley E.
        • Jagsi R.
        • Goldberg S.
        • et al.
        The management of ductal carcinoma in situ in North America and Europe. Results of a survey.
        Cancer. 2004; 101: 1958-1967
        • Mandelblatt J.S.
        • Hadley J.
        • Kerner J.F.
        • et al.
        Patterns of breast carcinoma treatment in older women.
        Cancer. 2000; 89: 561-573
        • Katz S.J.
        • Lantz P.M.
        • Janz N.K.
        • et al.
        Patient involvement in surgery treatment decisions for breast cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 5526-5533
      2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN/ACS Treatment Guidelines for Patients. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/patients/patient_gls.asp. [Last accessed: January 8, 2005].

        • Schwartz G.F.
        • Solin L.J.
        • Olivotto I.A.
        • et al.
        The Consensus Conference on the Treatment of in situ Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast, 22–25 April 1999.
        Breast. 2000; 9: 177-186
        • Morrow M.
        • Strom E.A.
        • Bassett L.W.
        • et al.
        Standard for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS).
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2002; 52: 256-276
      3. Radition Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG). Numeric Listing of Active Protocols. Available at: http://www.rtog.org/members/numericactive.html. [Last accessed: January 8, 2005]

      4. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Available at: http://ecog.dfci.harvard.edu/. [Last accessed: January 8, 2005].

        • Malin J.L.
        • Kahn K.L.
        • Adams J.
        • et al.
        Validity of cancer registry data for measuring the quality of breast cancer care.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 835-844

      Comments

      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.