Predictive factors of upstaging DCIS to invasive carcinoma in BCT vs mastectomy

Survival Outcomes Based on Axillary Surgery in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Nationwide Study From the Korean Breast Cancer Society

PURPOSE

In total mastectomy (TM), sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is recommended but can be omitted for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). However, concerns regarding SLNB-related complications and their impact on quality of life exist. Consequently, further research is required to evaluate the role of axillary surgeries, including SLNB, in the treatment of TM. We aimed to explore the clinicopathological factors and outcomes associated with axillary surgery in patients with a final diagnosis of pure DCIS who underwent BCS or TM.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed large-scale data from the Korean Breast Cancer Society registration database, highlighting on patients diagnosed with pure DCIS who underwent surgery and were categorized into two groups: BCS and TM. Patients were further categorized into surgery and non-surgery groups according to their axillary surgery status. The analysis compared clinicopathological factors and outcomes according to axillary surgery status between the BCS and TM groups.

RESULTS

Among 18,196 patients who underwent surgery for DCIS between 1981 and 2022, 11,872 underwent BCS and 6,324 underwent TM. Both groups leaned towards axillary surgery more frequently for large tumors. In the BCS group, clinical lymph node status was associated with axillary surgery (odds ratio, 11.101; p = 0.003). However, in the TM group, no significant differences in these factors were observed. Survival rates did not vary between groups according to axillary surgery performance.

CONCLUSION

The decision to perform axillary surgery in patients with a final diagnosis of pure DCIS does not affect the prognosis, regardless of the breast surgical method. Furthermore, regardless of the breast surgical method, axillary surgery, including SLNB, should be considered for high-risk patients, such as those with large tumors. This may reduce unnecessary axillary surgery and enhance the patients' quality of life.

Exploring the Potential of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Ultrasound

Breast ultrasound has emerged as a valuable imaging modality in the detection and characterization of breast lesions, particularly in women with dense breast tissue or contraindications for mammography. Within this framework, artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered significant attention for its potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in breast ultrasound and revolutionize the workflow. This review article aims to comprehensively explore the current state of research and development in harnessing AI's capabilities for breast ultrasound. We delve into various AI techniques, including machine learning, deep learning, as well as their applications in automating lesion detection, segmentation, and classification tasks. Furthermore, the review addresses the challenges and hurdles faced in implementing AI systems in breast ultrasound diagnostics, such as data privacy, interpretability, and regulatory approval. Ethical considerations pertaining to the integration of AI into clinical practice are also discussed, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a patient-centered approach. The integration of AI into breast ultrasound holds great promise for improving diagnostic accuracy, enhancing efficiency, and ultimately advancing patient's care. By examining the current state of research and identifying future opportunities, this review aims to contribute to the understanding and utilization of AI in breast ultrasound and encourage further interdisciplinary collaboration to maximize its potential in clinical practice.

Oncoplastic Breast Surgery versus Conservative Mastectomy in the Management of Large Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Surgical, Oncological, and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Oncoplastic level II breast-conserving surgery (OPS2) allows for wider excisions than standard breast-conserving surgery, but the literature on this technique in the treatment of DCIS is scarce. This study compares OPS2 to conservative mastectomy (CM) in patients undergoing surgery for large DCIS. The clinical, radiological, surgical, and post-operative data of 147 patients who underwent either CM or OPS2 for large DCIS between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical, oncological, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. The surgical outcomes were similar, in terms of margin involvement (p = 0.211), complication rate (p = 0.827), and re-excision rate (p = 1). The rate of additional surgery for cosmetic optimization was significantly lower in the OPS2 group: only 1 (1.8%) patient required surgical adjustments versus 24 (26.4%) patients in the CM group (p < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). The oncological outcomes did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.662). The PRO analysis showed better outcomes in the OPS2 group, which achieved statistical significance in the sexual well-being module (p = 0.015). Skin sensitivity loss was also significantly lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). When feasible, OPS2 should be considered in the treatment of large DCIS, as it is safe and shows high levels of patient satisfaction.

Overuse of Axillary Surgery in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Opportunity for De-escalation

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is noninvasive breast cancer and therefore nodal staging is not routinely recommended. We evaluated the use of and factors associated with axillary surgery in DCIS in the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

METHODS

DCIS cases were identified from the NCDB 2012-2018. Use of axillary surgery was evaluated over time, and factors associated with axillary surgery were assessed for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy groups.

RESULTS

We identified 178,762 patients, median age of 60 years. Majority of DCIS (87%) was ER-positive, and 14% low, 43% intermediate, and 44% high grade. Median DCIS size was 1.1 cm. BCS was performed in 72%, whereas 28% had mastectomy. Overall axillary surgery was performed in 38% and was higher in patients undergoing mastectomy compared with patients undergoing BCS (88% vs. 19%, p < 0.001). At axillary surgery, the vast majority (92%) had 1-5 nodes examined, whereas 8% had >5 nodes examined. Over time, axillary surgery decreased in BCS patients (21% in 2012 to 17% in 2018, p < 0.001) but increased slightly in mastectomy patients (86% in 2012 to 90% in 2018, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with axillary surgery were younger patient age, larger tumor size, higher grade, and ER-negative status.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with axillary surgery reflect higher risk disease for upstage to invasive cancer, indicating surgeon judgment. However, despite axillary surgery being overtreatment of DCIS, it is common in mastectomy and is performed for one in five patients undergoing BCS. This provides opportunity for improvement in breast cancer care delivery.

Oncological Safety of Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Extensive Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

INTRODUCTION

Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction is the ideal treatment for interested and suitable patients with extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). There is no guideline to indicate on how large DCIS the procedure can be performed safely. The primary target of this study was to define the oncological safety of SSM in extensive pure DCIS. The secondary target was to find predictive factors for DCIS upstaging to invasive disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 71 consecutive patients with extensive pure DCIS and undergoing SSM with immediate latissimus dorsi (LD) breast reconstruction were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The median size of DCIS lesion in preoperative imaging was 60 mm, the median weight of mastectomy specimen was 350 g, and the median resection margin (RM) was 2.0 mm. A total of 20 patients (28%) had an RM less than 0.5 mm and nine patients (13%) had ink positive margins. Six patients having positive RM underwent reoperation. A total of 29 patients (41%) presented invasive cancer foci in final histopathological assessment and nine patients (13%) had an axillary metastasis. Adjuvant therapy was given to 23 patients presenting invasive cancer. There were no local recurrences or distant metastases (0%, 95% confidence interval 0-0.051) during the mean follow-up of 71 mo. None of the factors evaluated predicted upstaging to invasive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

SSM with immediate breast reconstruction in patients with extensive DCIS is oncologically safe even when the margins are close or positive. Additional invasive foci and solitary axillary lymph node metastases are frequent but do not worsen the outcome.

Is conservative management of ductal carcinoma in situ risky?

Nonsurgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ is controversial and little is known about the long-term consequences of this approach. In this study, we aimed to determine the risk of (a) upstaging to invasive carcinoma at excision and (b) ipsilateral breast cancer events in patients who might have been eligible for nonsurgical management of DCIS trials. Data from women aged 20 years or older with a biopsy diagnosis of DCIS between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014 were collated. The women underwent biopsy and surgical resection (lumpectomy or mastectomy) and were treated with radiation or endocrine therapy as per treating physicians’ choice. The development of ipsilateral breast cancer events (IBEs) was analyzed in patients with at least 5 years of follow-up after standard of care therapy for DCIS. Subset-analysis was undertaken to identify the incidence of IBEs in patients eligible for nonsurgical management trials. The study population consisted of 378 patients with matched cases of biopsy and surgical excision. The overall upstaging rate to IBC was 14.3 and 12.9% for COMET, 8.8% for LORIS, and 10.7% for LORD trial “eligible” patients. At 5 years of follow-up, ~11.5% of overall and trial eligible patients developed IBEs of which approximately half were invasive IBEs. In conclusion, women with DCIS who would have been eligible for nonsurgical management trials have a significantly high risk of developing ipsilateral breast events within 5 years of diagnosis. Better selection criteria are needed to identify DCIS patients who are at very low risk for the development of IBC.

Application of deep learning to predict underestimation in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with ultrasound

Background

To develop an ultrasound-based deep learning model to predict postoperative upgrading of pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed by core needle biopsy (CNB) before surgery.

Methods

Of the 360 patients with DCIS diagnosed by CNB and identified retrospectively, 180 had lesions upstaged to ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCISM) or invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) postoperatively. Ultrasound images obtained from the hospital database were divided into a training set (n=240) and validation set (n=120), with a ratio of 2:1 in chronological order. Four deep learning models, based on the ResNet and VggNet structures, were established to classify the ultrasound images into postoperative upgrade and pure DCIS. We obtained the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) to estimate the performance of the predictive models. The robustness of the models was evaluated by a 3-fold cross-validation.

Results

Clinical features were not significantly different between the training set and the test set (P value >0.05). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of our models ranged from 0.724 to 0.804. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the optimal model were 0.733, 0.750, and 0.742, respectively. The three-fold cross-validation results showed that the model was very robust.

Conclusions

The ultrasound-based deep learning prediction model is effective in predicting DCIS that will be upgraded postoperatively.

Preoperative breast MRI in management of patients with needle biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

BACKGROUND

In 20-25% of patients with biopsy-proven DCIS underestimation occurs. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is offered to patients with biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and a high risk of occult invasive cancer. However, assessment of high risk is controversial. We aimed to improve selection of patients for SLNB with preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, MRI was offered to all subsequent patients with a biopsy-proven DCIS admitted to a large Dutch teaching hospital between April 2012 and March 2017. MRI images were analysed for signs of invasive cancer and the results were compared with the pathologic results after surgical treatment. The diagnostic accuracy of additional MRI in detecting occult invasive cancer was determined.

RESULTS

Of 211 patients eligible for additional MRI analysis, 149 underwent breast MRI. The majority (67%) received breast-conserving therapy, and the underestimation rate was 20%. Subsequent to MRI analysis, 20 additional invasive diagnostic procedures were performed. Occult invasive cancer was suspected on MRI in 46 patients (31%) and was confirmed in 18 (12%). In this study, breast MRI had a sensitivity of 67%, a specificity of 77%, and a true negative rate of 91%.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative breast MRI cannot reliably predict the presence of invasive cancer in patients with biopsy proven DCIS. Therefore, it cannot be used to in the selection of patients for a SLNB.

“Harms” Associated with Breast Cancer Screening and Reliability of Frozen Section in Older Women: In the Case of an 80 Year Old Woman

The objective of this paper is to present a rare case with negative final histologic examination despite abnormal findings of all previous exams indicating breast cancer in an 80 year old woman. Mammographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings were concordant with the frozen section biopsy result of DCIS. However, the final histologic diagnosis was radial scar (benign breast lesion that can radiologically mimic malignancy). As a conclusion, abnormal mammographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings with positive for DCIS frozen section reports are not always confirmed in the final histologic examination. Furthermore, considering that screening does not seem to be associated with a reduction in mortality due to breast cancer after the age of 75, breast cancer screening could be individualized in this age group.