Coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ independently predicts lower tumor aggressiveness in node-positive luminal breast cancer

The impact of extensive intraductal component (EIC) on the genomic risk of recurrence in early hormone receptor positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Early invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) breast cancer often presents with a coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component, while about 5 % of cases present with an extensive (>25 %) intraductal component (EIC). The impact of EIC on the genomic risk of recurrence is unclear.

METHODS

Patients with early hormone receptor-positive HER2neu-negative (HR + HER2-) IDC breast cancer and a known OncotypeDX Breast Recurrence Score® (RS) who underwent breast surgery at our institute were included. Using a rule-based text-analysis algorithm, we analyzed pathological reports and categorized patients into three groups: EIC, non-extensive DCIS (DCIS-L), and pure-IDC (NO-DCIS). Genomic risk was determined using OncotypeDX RS.

RESULTS

A total of 33 (4.6 %) EIC cases, 377 (57.2 %) DCIS-L cases and 307 (42.8 %) NO-DCIS cases were identified. Patients in the EIC group were younger and had lower tumor grades than other groups. The distribution of genomic risk varied between the groups, with EIC tumors significantly less likely to have a high RS (>25) compared to DCIS-L and No-DCIS tumors (3 % vs 20 % and 20 %, respectively; p = 0.03). When adjusted to age, tumor size, grade and LNs involvement, both DCIS-L and NO-DCIS groups were significantly correlated with a higher probability of high RS compared to the EIC group (OR 12.3 and OR 13.1, respectively; p < 0.02). Moreover, patients with EIC had a lower likelihood for adjuvant chemotherapy recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

In early HR + HER2- IDC, an EIC correlates with a reduced genomic recurrence risk. The impact on genomic risk seems to be influenced by the extent, not merely the presence, of DCIS.

Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer invasive ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of patients with invasive ductal carcinoma coexisting with ductal carcinoma in situ (IDC-DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), and to explore the factors affecting the prognosis, so as to provide new ideas for clinical diagnosis and treatment of these patients.

METHODS

The patients with TNBC underwent surgery in the Department of Breast Surgery of Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital from October 2012 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into IDC-DCIS group and IDC group. The clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of the two groups were compared. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 358 patients were enrolled. There were significant differences in age (P = 0.002), family history (P = 0.016), menopausal status (P = 0.003), KI-67% (P < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.010), histologic grade of IDC (P < 0.001) and multifocal (P < 0.001) between the two groups. The disease-free survival (DFS) of the IDC-DCIS group was better than that of the IDC group (the 5-year DFS was 87.9% vs. 82.6%, P = 0.045), but the overall survival (OS) of the two groups was not statistically significant (the 5-year OS was 96.2% vs. 96.0%, P = 0.573). In addition, the coexistence of DCIS (P = 0.030), lymph node pathologic stage (P = 0.001), tumor location (P = 0.011), and adjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001) were independent prognostic factors for DFS.

CONCLUSION

In TNBC, the IDC-DCIS group had less invasive biological characteristics. The DFS of the IDC-DCIS group was better than that of the IDC group, but there was no statistical difference in OS between the two groups. In addition, the coexistence of DCIS, lymph node stage, tumor location and adjuvant chemotherapy may be independent prognostic factors for DFS.

Isogenic Mammary Models of Intraductal Carcinoma Reveal Progression to Invasiveness in the Absence of a Non-Obligatory In Situ Stage

In breast cancer, progression to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) involves interactions between immune, myoepithelial, and tumor cells. Development of IDC can proceed through ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a non-obligate, non-invasive stage, or IDC can develop without evidence of DCIS and these cases associate with poorer prognosis. Tractable, immune-competent mouse models are needed to help delineate distinct mechanisms of local tumor cell invasion and prognostic implications. To address these gaps, we delivered murine mammary carcinoma cell lines directly into the main mammary lactiferous duct of immune-competent mice. Using two strains of immune-competent mice (BALB/c, C57BL/6), one immune-compromised (severe combined immunodeficiency; SCID) C57BL/6 strain, and six different murine mammary cancer cell lines (D2.OR, D2A1, 4T1, EMT6, EO771, Py230), we found early loss of ductal myoepithelial cell differentiation markers p63, α-smooth muscle actin, and calponin, and rapid formation of IDC in the absence of DCIS. Rapid IDC formation also occurred in the absence of adaptive immunity. Combined, these studies demonstrate that loss of myoepithelial barrier function does not require an intact immune system, and suggest that these isogenic murine models may prove a useful tool to study IDC in the absence of a non-obligatory DCIS stage-an under-investigated subset of poor prognostic human breast cancer.

The Presence of an In Situ Component on Pre-Treatment Biopsy Is Not Associated with Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

Simple Summary

Identifying markers predictive of response and resistance to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has become a major research objective. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is associated with invasive disease in more than half of invasive breast cancer cases. It is generally assumed that DCIS does not respond to NAC, but the effect of chemotherapy on in situ components has been little studied. We assessed the predictive value of the presence of an in situ component on pre-NAC biopsy on pathological complete response (pCR) in a real-life cohort of patients treated by NAC. We included 1148 patients; 44% of tumors were luminal (n = 508), 31% triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) (n = 359) and 24% HER2-positive (n = 281). DCIS was found in 225 samples (19.6%) before NAC. The presence of a DCIS component on pre-NAC biopsy was not associated with pCR and did not seem to be a critical factor for the prediction of response to NAC.

Abstract

A ductal in situ (DCIS) component is often associated with invasive breast carcinoma (BC), and its effect on response to treatment is unknown. We assessed the predictive value of the DCIS component for pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We analyzed a cohort of 1148 T1–3NxM0 breast cancer (BC) patients treated by NAC at Institut Curie between 2002 and 2012. The presence of a DCIS component was retrospectively recorded from both the pre-NAC biopsy pathological report and surgical specimens. We included 1148 BC patients treated by NAC for whom pre- and post-NAC data concerning the in situ component were available. DCIS was present before NAC in 19.6% of the population. Overall, 283 patients (19.4%) achieved pCR after NAC. There was no significant association between the presence of DCIS on pre-NAC biopsy and pCR. In a multivariate analysis including subtype, tumor size, grade, mitotic index, and Ki67 index, only BC subtype (luminal/TNBC/HER2-positive) and Ki67 were significantly associated with pCR. The presence of a DCIS component on pre-NAC biopsy is not associated with pCR and does not seem to be a critical factor for predicting response to NAC.

Is there a difference in FDG PET findings of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast with and without coexisting DCIS?

OBJECTIVES

Studies have reported that invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) with coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) show lower metastatic potential and recurrence and better overall survival than pure IDC. In this study, we assessed F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images of patients with newly diagnosed IDC to determine if there is any difference in PET findings in IDC-DCIS and pure IDC cases.

METHODS

FDG PET/CT images of patients with newly diagnosed IDC of the breast who subsequently underwent breast surgery and had histopathology result in our records were further evaluated. Tumor grade, pathological staging, and presence of DCIS were noted from the histopathology results. Standardized uptake value (SUV) of the primary tumor (SUVmax and SULmax), other hypermetabolic foci in the breast, and ipsilateral normal breast were measured. Presence of axillary and distant metastases was noted.

RESULTS

Fifty seven (57) patients with IDC were included. Coexisting DCIS was present in 44 (IDC-DCIS) and not present in 13 (pure IDC) cases. Per histopathology, the primary tumor was unifocal in 33 IDC-DCIS (75%) and 12 pure IDC (92.3%) cases, and multifocal in 11 IDC-DCIS cases (25%), and 1 pure IDC case (7.7%). FDG uptake was multifocal in 20 IDC-DCIS cases (45.5%) and 1 pure IDC case (7.7%), and unifocal in 24 IDC-DCIS (54.5%), and 12 pure IDC (92.3%) cases. There was no significant difference in patient age, size of the primary tumor, SUVmax and SULmax of the primary tumor and SUVmax of the normal breast in IDC-DCIS and pure IDC cases (p>0.05). Pathology showed axillary metastasis in all 13 pure IDC (100%), and 27 IDC-DCIS (61.4%) cases. PET showed axillary uptake in 25 IDC-DCIS (56.8%), and 8 pure IDC (61.5%) cases, and abnormal/questionable distant uptake in 12 IDC-DCIS cases and 1 pure IDC case.

CONCLUSION

In our preliminary findings, multifocal breast FDG uptake and multifocal tumor appear to be more common in IDC-DCIS than pure IDC. There is no significant difference in SUV and size of the primary tumor in IDC-DCIS and pure IDC cases. Axillary metastases appear to be more common in pure IDC than IDC-DCIS cases.

The prognostic significance of co-existence ductal carcinoma in situ in invasive ductal breast cancer: a large population-based study and a matched case-control analysis

Background

To evaluate the prognostic significance of co-existence ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in invasive ductal breast cancer (IDC) compared with pure IDC.

Methods

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was searched to identify unilateral IDC cases between 2004 and 2015, which were grouped into pure IDC and IDC with DCIS component (IDC-DCIS). Comparisons of the distribution of clinical-pathological characteristics the two groups were performed using Pearson's chi-square. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared across RS groups using the log-rank statistic. Cox models were fitted to assess the factors independently associated with survival. A 1:1 matched case-control analysis was conducted with each clinical-pathological characteristic matched completely.

Results

A total of 98,097 pure IDC cases (39.6%) and 149,477 IDC-DCIS cases (60.4%) were enrolled. IDC-DCIS patients were presented with less aggressive characteristics such as lower proportion of histologic grade III (34.2% vs. 42.2%, P<0.001), ER negative (16.8% vs. 26.1%, P<0.001) and PR negative (26.5% vs. 35.7%, P<0.001) disease and higher proportion of T1 cases (68.7% vs. 58.2%, P<0.001) compared with pure IDC patients. Co-existence DCIS was an independent prognostic factor for BCSS and OS in the whole cohort. According to the multivariate analysis, it was an independent favorable prognostic factor among ER positive cases, but an independent negative prognostic factor among ER negative cases based on the matched cohort.

Conclusions

Co-existence DCIS showed quite different prognostic significance among ER positive and negative disease.

Overall survival is improved when DCIS accompanies invasive breast cancer

Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) often presents alone or with a co-existing ductal carcinoma in situ component (IDC + DCIS). Studies have suggested that pure IDC may exhibit different biological behavior than IDC + DCIS, but whether this translates to a difference in outcomes is unclear. Here, utilizing the National Cancer Database we identified 494,801 stage I-III breast cancer patients diagnosed with either IDC alone or IDC + DCIS. We found that IDC + DCIS was associated with significantly better overall survival (OS) compared to IDC alone (5-year OS, 89.3% vs. 85.5%, p < 0.001), and this finding persisted on multivariable Cox modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables. The significantly superior OS observed for IDC + DCIS was limited to patients with invasive tumor size < 4 cm or with node negative disease. A greater improvement in OS was observed for tumors containing ≥25% DCIS component. We also found IDC + DCIS to be associated with lower T/N stage, low/intermediate grade, ER/PR positivity, and receipt of mastectomy. Thus, the presence of a DCIS component in patients with IDC is associated with favorable clinical characteristics and independently predicts improved OS. IDC + DCIS could be a useful prognostic factor for patients with breast cancer, particularly if treatment de-escalation is being considered for small or node negative tumors.

Invasive ductal carcinoma with coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ (IDC/DCIS) versus pure invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC): a comparison of clinicopathological characteristics, molecular subtypes, and clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is widely recognized as the precursor of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). We aimed to analyze the clinicopathological characteristics and clinical outcomes of coexisting DCIS component in IDC and its clinical significance according to molecular subtypes.

METHODS

Data from 3001 patients with IDC (79.4%) and IDC/DCIS (20.6%) who underwent surgery from January 2009 to June 2016 were retrospectively assessed. The clinical outcomes of IDC with coexistent DCIS in different molecular subtypes were evaluated.

RESULTS

IDC/DCIS patients were more likely to be younger (P < 0.001), had low tumor grade (P = 0.001), had less lymph node involvement (P = 0.038) and received more mastectomy (P = 0.002) than IDC patients. In the comparison of molecular subtype prevalence, IDC/DCIS patients were more frequently presented with luminal B/HER2 positive (12.5% vs 11.0%, P < 0.001) and HER2 positive subtypes (20.9% vs 9.8%, P < 0.001). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS, 90.9% vs 87.5%, P = 0.021) and 5-year overall survival (OS 96.1% vs 94.0%, P = 0.018) were significantly improved in IDC/DCIS patients compared to IDC patients. In multivariate analysis, the presence of coexisting DCIS (P = 0.048), tumor size (P < 0.001), lymph node status (P < 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.007) and molecular subtypes (P < 0.001) were independent prognostic factors for DFS. Furthermore, coexistence of DCIS component in IDC significantly improved DFS in HER2 positive (94.8% vs 78.5%, P = 0.003), but had no association in luminal and triple negative subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

IDC with coexisting DCIS was associated with improved prognosis. Patients with IDC/DCIS presented with more HER2 positive expression and might improve DFS in HER2 positive breast cancer.

Frequency of pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2 and TP53 in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in women under the age of 50 years

INTRODUCTION

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-obligate precursor of invasive ductal breast cancer, and approximately 20% of screen-detected tumours are pure DCIS. Most risk factors for breast cancer have similar associations with DCIS and IDC; however, there is limited data on the prevalence of the known high and moderate penetrance breast cancer predisposition genes in DCIS and which women with DCIS should be referred for genetic screening. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of germline variants in BRCA2, BRCA1, CHEK2, PALB2 and TP53 in DCIS in women aged less than 50 years of age.

METHODS

After DNA extraction from the peripheral blood, Access Array technology (Fluidigm) was used to amplify all exons of these five known breast cancer predisposition genes using a custom made targeted sequencing panel in 655 cases of pure DCIS presenting in women under the age of 50 years together with 1611 controls.

RESULTS

Case-control analysis revealed an excess of pathogenic variants in BRCA2 (OR = 27.96, 95%CI 6.56-119.26, P = 2.0 × 10^-10) and CHEK2 (OR = 8.04, 95%CI 2.93-22.05, P = 9.0 × 10^-6), with weaker associations with PALB2 (P = 0.003), BRCA1 (P = 0.007) and TP53 (P = 0.02). For oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive DCIS the frequency of pathogenic variants was 9% under the age of 50 (14% with a family history of breast cancer) and 29% under the age of 40 (42% with a family history of breast cancer). For ER-negative DCIS, the frequency was 9% (16% with a family history of breast cancer) and 8% (11% with a family history of breast cancer) under the ages of 50 and 40, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that breast tumourigenesis in women with pathogenic variants in BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BRCA1 and TP53 can involve a DCIS precursor stage and that the focus of genetic testing in DCIS should be on women under the age of 40 with ER-positive DCIS.

Histogram analysis of volume-based apparent diffusion coefficient in breast cancer

Background Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Recent studies showed that apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values have various association with tumor aggressiveness and prognosis. Purpose To evaluate the value of histogram analysis of ADC values obtained from the whole tumor volume in invasive ductal cancer (IDC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Material and Methods This retrospective study included 201 patients with confirmed DCIS (n = 37) and IDC (n = 164). The IDC group was divided into two groups based on the presence of a DCIS component: IDC-DCIS (n = 76) and pure IDC (n = 88). All patients underwent preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted images at 3.0 T. Histogram parameters of cumulative ADC values, skewness, and kurtosis were calculated and statistically analyzed. Results The differences between DCIS, IDC-DCIS, and pure IDC were significant in all percentiles of ADC values, in descending order of DCIS, IDC-DCIS, and pure IDC. IDC showed significantly lower ADC values than DCIS, and ADC50 was the best indicator for discriminating IDC from DCIS, with a threshold of 1.185 × 10^-3 mm²/s (sensitivity of 82.9%, specificity of 75.7%). However, multivariate analysis of obtained ADC values showed no significant differences between DCIS, IDC-DCIS, and pure IDC ( P > 0.05). Conclusion Volume-based ADC values showed association with heterogeneity of breast cancer. However, there was no additional diagnostic performance in histogram analysis for differentiating between DCIS, IDC-DCIS, and pure IDC.

Male breast cancer precursor lesions: analysis of the EORTC 10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male Breast Cancer Program

In men, data regarding breast cancer carcinogenesis are limited. The aim of our study was to describe the presence of precursor lesions adjacent to invasive male breast cancer, in order to increase our understanding of carcinogenesis in these patients. Central pathology review was performed for 1328 male breast cancer patients, registered in the retrospective joint analysis of the International Male Breast Cancer Program, which included the presence and type of breast cancer precursor lesions. In a subset, invasive breast cancer was compared with the adjacent precursor lesion by immunohistochemistry (n=83) or targeted next generation sequencing (n=7). Additionally, we correlated the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ with outcome. A substantial proportion (46.2%) of patients with invasive breast cancer also had an adjacent precursor lesion, mainly ductal carcinoma in situ (97.9%). The presence of lobular carcinoma in situ and columnar cell-like lesions were very low (<1%). In the subset of invasive breast cancer cases with adjacent ductal carcinoma in situ (n=83), a complete concordance was observed between the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status of both components. Next generation sequencing on a subset of cases with invasive breast cancer and adjacent ductal carcinoma in situ (n=4) showed identical genomic aberrations, including PIK3CA, GATA3, TP53, and MAP2K4 mutations. Next generation sequencing on a subset of cases with invasive breast cancer and an adjacent columnar cell-like lesion showed genomic concordance in two out of three patients. A multivariate Cox model for survival showed a trend that the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ was associated with a better overall survival, in particular in the Luminal B HER2+ subgroup. In conclusion, ductal carcinoma in situ is the most commonly observed precursor lesion in male breast cancer and its presence seems to be associated with a better outcome, in particular in Luminal B HER2+ cases. The rate of lobular carcinoma in situ and columnar cell-like lesions adjacent to male breast cancer is very low, but our findings support the role of columnar cell-like lesions as a precursor of male breast cancer.

Breast cancer risk factor associations differ for pure versus invasive carcinoma with an in situ component in case-control and case-case analyses

PURPOSE

Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) is diagnosed with or without a ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) component. Previous analyses have found significant differences in tumor characteristics between pure IDC lacking DCIS and mixed IDC with DCIS. We will test our hypothesis that pure IDC represents a form of breast cancer with etiology and risk factors distinct from mixed IDC/DCIS.

METHODS

We compared reproductive risk factors for breast cancer risk, as well as family and smoking history between 831 women with mixed IDC/DCIS (n = 650) or pure IDC (n = 181), and 1,620 controls, in the context of the Women's Circle of Health Study (WCHS), a case-control study of breast cancer in African-American and European-American women. Data on reproductive and lifestyle factors were collected during interviews, and tumor characteristics were abstracted from pathology reports. Case-control and case-case analyses were conducted using unconditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most risk factors were similarly associated with pure IDC and mixed IDC/DCIS. However, among postmenopausal women, risk of pure IDC was lower in women with body mass index (BMI) 25 to <30 [odds ratio (OR) 0.66; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.35-1.23] and BMI ≥ 30 (OR 0.33; 95 % CI 0.18-0.67) compared to women with BMI < 25, with no associations with mixed IDC/DCIS. In case-case analyses, women who breastfed up to 12 months (OR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.32-0.94) or longer (OR 0.47; 95 % CI 0.26-0.87) showed decreased odds of pure IDC than mixed IDC/DCIS compared to those who did not breastfeed.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations with some breast cancer risk factors differed between mixed IDC/DCIS and pure IDC, potentially suggesting differential developmental pathways. These findings, if confirmed in a larger study, will provide a better understanding of the developmental patterns of breast cancer and the influence of modifiable risk factors, which in turn could lead to better preventive measures for pure IDC, which have worse disease prognosis compared to mixed IDC/DCIS.

Grade of ductal carcinoma in situ accompanying infiltrating ductal carcinoma as an independent prognostic factor

BACKGROUND

Several studies about the relationship between IDC and DCIS have been reported, but no consensus has been reached regarding clinical characteristics and prognostic value.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent surgery for IDC between 2006 and 2008. DCIS adjacent to IDC was pathologically classified as either high-grade DCIS or non-high-grade DCIS.

RESULTS

Among 1751 IDC patients within the study period, 1384 patients (79.0%) had concomitant DCIS. There was no survival difference between patients with pure IDC and those with IDC and concomitant DCIS. However, patients with high-grade DCIS had worse survival than did patients with non-high-grade DCIS or pure IDC (5-year recurrence-free survival rates for IDC with non-high-grade DCIS, pure IDC without DCIS, and IDC with high-grade DCIS were 97%, 93%, and 86%, respectively; P = .001). This tendency was maintained regardless of estrogen receptor status or histologic grade of IDC. In a Cox regression model, patients with IDC and accompanying high-grade DCIS had a 2.5-fold higher probability of local or distant relapse than did those with IDC and low-grade DCIS (hazard ratio, 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-5.64).

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of patients with invasive breast cancer differed according to the grade of concomitant adjacent DCIS. Accordingly, the grade of adjacent DCIS should be considered as a prognostic factor in the clinical management of patients with breast cancer. However, in our study, the follow-up periods were short to confirm prognostic effect. Further studies are needed.