Understanding a ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis: patient views and surgeon descriptions

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: finding the balance between overtreatment and undertreatment

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for 15-25% of all breast cancer diagnoses. Its prognosis is excellent overall, the main risk being the occurrence of local breast events, as most cases of DCIS do not progress to invasive cancer. Systematic screening has greatly increased the incidence of this non-obligate precursor of invasion, lending urgency to the need to identify DCIS that is prone to invasive progression and distinguish it from non-invasion-prone DCIS, as the latter can be overdiagnosed and therefore overtreated. Treatment strategies, including surgery, radiotherapy, and optional endocrine therapy, decrease the risk of local events, but have no effect on survival outcomes. Active surveillance is being evaluated as a possible new option for low-risk DCIS. Considerable efforts to decipher the biology of DCIS have led to a better understanding of the factors that determine its variable natural history. Given this variability, shared decision making regarding optimal, personalised treatment strategies is the most appropriate course of action. Well designed, risk-based de-escalation studies remain a major need in this field.

Age and race/ethnicity differences in decisional conflict in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ

PURPOSE

Women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) face confusion and uncertainty about treatment options. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are differences in decisional conflict about treatment by age and race/ethnicity.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of women (age ≥ 18) diagnosed with DCIS enrolled at Kaiser Permanente of Southern California. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measured personal perceptions of decision uncertainty, values clarity, and effective decision-making. We used a multivariable regression to study whether age, race, and ethnicity were associated with patient-reported DCS.

RESULTS

45% (N = 1395) of women who received the online survey, participated. The mean age was 56 (± 9.6) years, the majority were white. Compared to women younger than 50, women aged 60-69 reported lower overall DCS scores (-5.4; 95% CI -1.5 to -9.3). Women > 70 had lower values clarity scores (-9.0; 95% CI -2.8 to -15.2) about their treatment compared to women aged 50-59 and 60-69 (-7.1; 95% CI -2.9 to -11.3 and - 7.2; 95% CI -2.9 to -11.5) and likewise, lower effective decision-making scores (-5.4; 95% CI -1.7 to -9.2 and - 5.2; 95% CI -1.4 to -9.0) compared to women < 50. Compared to whites, blacks reported lower decision conflict (-4.4; 95% CI 0.04 to -8.8) and lower informed decision (-5.2; 95% CI -0.18 to -10.3) about DCIS treatment.

CONCLUSION

Younger women reported higher decisional conflict about DCIS treatment, compared to older women (> 70). Age based tailored discussions about treatment options, health education, and supportive decision-making interventions/tools may reduce decision conflict in future DCIS patients.

TRADE REGISTRATION

The IRB number is 10678.

DCIS and LCIS: Are the Risk Factors for Developing In Situ Breast Cancer Different?

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is widely accepted as a precursor of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is considered a risk factor for invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), and it is unclear whether LCIS is also a precursor. Therefore, it would be expected that similar risk factors predispose to both DCIS and IDC, but not necessarily LCIS and ILC. This study examined associations with risk factors using data from 3075 DCIS cases, 338 LCIS cases, and 1584 controls aged 35-60, recruited from the UK-based GLACIER and ICICLE case-control studies between 2007 and 2012. Analysis showed that breastfeeding in parous women was protective against DCIS and LCIS, which is consistent with research on invasive breast cancer (IBC). Additionally, long-term use of HRT in post-menopausal women increased the risk of DCIS and LCIS, with a stronger association in LCIS, similar to the association with ILC. Contrary to findings with IBC, parity and the number of births were not protective against DCIS or LCIS, while oral contraceptives showed an unexpected protective effect. These findings suggest both similarities and differences in risk factors for DCIS and LCIS compared to IBC and that there may be justification for increased breast surveillance in post-menopausal women taking long-term HRT.

Preoperative ultrasound radiomics analysis for expression of multiple molecular biomarkers in mass type of breast ductal carcinoma in situ

BACKGROUND

The molecular biomarkers of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) have important guiding significance for individualized precision treatment. This study was intended to explore the significance of radiomics based on ultrasound images to predict the expression of molecular biomarkers of mass type of DCIS.

METHODS

116 patients with mass type of DCIS were included in this retrospective study. The radiomics features were extracted based on ultrasound images. According to the ratio of 7:3, the data sets of molecular biomarkers were split into training set and test set. The radiomics models were developed to predict the expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), Ki67, p16, and p53 by using combination of multiple feature selection and classifiers. The predictive performance of the models were evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating curve.

RESULTS

The investigators extracted 5234 radiomics features from ultrasound images. 12, 23, 41, 51, 31 and 23 features were important for constructing the models. The radiomics scores were significantly (P < 0.05) in each molecular marker expression of mass type of DCIS. The radiomics models showed predictive performance with AUC greater than 0.7 in the training set and test set: ER (0.94 and 0.84), PR (0.90 and 0.78), HER2 (0.94 and 0.74), Ki67 (0.95 and 0.86), p16 (0.96 and 0.78), and p53 (0.95 and 0.74), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonic-based radiomics analysis provided a noninvasive preoperative method for predicting the expression of molecular markers of mass type of DCIS with good accuracy.

Identifying opportunities to support patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ: qualitative interviews with clinicians

Background

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) report poor patient-clinician communication, and long-lasting confusion and anxiety about their treatment and prognosis. Research shows that patient-centred care (PCC) improves patient experience and outcomes. Little is known about the clinician experience of delivering PCC for DCIS. This study characterized communication challenges faced by clinicians, and interventions they need to improve PCC for DCIS.

Methods

Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit Canadian clinicians by specialty, gender, years of experience, setting, and geographic location. Qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone. Data were analyzed using constant comparison. Findings were mapped to a cancer-specific, comprehensive PCC framework to identify opportunities for improvement.

Results

Clinicians described approaches they used to address the PCC domains of fostering a healing relationship, exchanging information, and addressing emotions, but do not appear to be addressing the domains of managing uncertainty, involving women in making decisions, or enabling self-management. However, many clinicians described challenges or variable practices for all PCC domains but fostering a healing relationship. Clinicians vary in describing DCIS as cancer based on personal beliefs. When exchanging information, most find it difficult to justify treatment while assuring women of a good prognosis, and feel frustrated when women remain confused despite their efforts to explain it. While they recognize confusion and anxiety among women, clinicians said that patient navigators, social workers, support groups and high-quality information specific to DCIS are lacking. Despite these challenges, clinicians said they did not need or want communication interventions.

Conclusions

Findings represent currently unmet opportunities by which to help clinicians enhance PCC for DCIS, and underscore the need for supplemental information and supportive care specific to DCIS. Future research is needed to develop and test communication interventions that improve PCC for DCIS. If effective and widely implemented, this may contribute to improved care experiences and outcomes for women diagnosed with and treated for DCIS.

Recommendations to improve patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ: Qualitative focus groups with women

Background

Patient‐centred care (PCC) improves health‐care experiences and outcomes. Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and clinicians have reported communication difficulties. Little prior research has studied how to improve communication and PCC for DCIS.

Objective

This study explored how to achieve PCC for DCIS.

Design

Canadian women treated for DCIS from five provinces participated in semi‐structured focus groups based on a 6‐domain cancer‐specific PCC framework to discuss communication about DCIS. Data were analysed using constant comparative technique.

Setting and Participants

Thirty‐five women aged 30 to 86 participated in five focus groups at five hospitals.

Results

Women said their clinicians used multiple approaches for fostering a healing relationship; however, most described an absence of desired information or behaviour to exchange information, respond to emotions, manage uncertainty, make decisions and enable self‐management. Most women were confused by terminology, offered little information about the risks of progression/recurrence, uninformed about treatment benefits and risks, frustrated with lack of engagement in decision making, given little information about follow‐up plans or self‐care advice, and received no acknowledgement or offer of emotional support.

Discussion and Conclusions

By comparing the accounts of women with DCIS to a PCC framework, we identified limitations and inconsistencies in women's lived experience of communication about DCIS, and approaches by which clinicians can more consistently achieve PCC for DCIS. Future research should develop and evaluate informational tools to support PCC for DCIS.

Ductal carcinoma in situ: to treat or not to treat, that is the question

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) now represents 20-25% of all 'breast cancers' consequent upon detection by population-based breast cancer screening programmes. Currently, all DCIS lesions are treated, and treatment comprises either mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery supplemented with radiotherapy. However, most DCIS lesions remain indolent. Difficulty in discerning harmless lesions from potentially invasive ones can lead to overtreatment of this condition in many patients. To counter overtreatment and to transform clinical practice, a global, comprehensive and multidisciplinary collaboration is required. Here we review the incidence of DCIS, the perception of risk for developing invasive breast cancer, the current treatment options and the known molecular aspects of progression. Further research is needed to gain new insights for improved diagnosis and management of DCIS, and this is integrated in the PRECISION (PREvent ductal Carcinoma In Situ Invasive Overtreatment Now) initiative. This international effort will seek to determine which DCISs require treatment and prevent the consequences of overtreatment on the lives of many women affected by DCIS.

Quality of DCIS information on the internet: a content analysis

PURPOSE

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) experience lingering confusion and anxiety, and may use the Internet for supplemental information. This study assessed the content and quality of DCIS information on the Internet.

METHODS

We searched Google for English-language, publicly available DCIS information tools published from 2010 to current by non-profit organizations. We summarized tool characteristics, DCIS labels, and information important to women with DCIS corresponding to domains of a patient-centred care (PCC) framework. Tool quality was appraised with the DISCERN instrument.

RESULTS

Of 39 tools included, most were plain language summaries published since 2016. Tools employed a median of 2.0 labels (range 1.0 to 5.0) for DCIS, most frequently non-invasive breast cancer (29, 74.4%), abnormal cells (14, 35.9%), pre-cancer (14, 35.9%), and early form of breast cancer (13, 33.3%). Tools addressed a median of 4.0 (range 2.0 to 5.0) PCC domains. Few tools contained content in the domains of fostering the relationship (30.8%), addressing emotions (41.0%), or follow-up (41.0%); 74.4% noted the risk of progression or recurrence but provided vague details. Tools were assessed as high (25.6%), moderate (48.7%), and low (25.6%) quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Few DCIS information tools available to women on the Internet meet quality criteria for consumer health information or address concerns of importance to women with DCIS. By identifying a range of poorly defined terms used to label DCIS, and specific content domains that were lacking, this study identified how existing tools could be improved, and identified higher-quality tools that clinicians can use when discussing DCIS with patients.

National consensus recommendations on patient-centered care for ductal carcinoma in situ

PURPOSE

The purpose of this research was to generate recommendations on strategies to achieve patient-centered care (PCC) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODS

Thirty clinicians (surgeons, medical/radiation oncologists, radiologists, nurses, navigators) who manage DCIS and 32 DCIS survivors aged 18 or older were nominated. Forty-six recommendations to support PCC for DCIS were derived from primary research, and rated in a two-round Delphi process from March to June 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 29 clinicians and 27 women completed Round One, and 28 clinicians and 22 women completed Round Two. The 29 recommendations retained by both women and clinicians reflected the PCC domains of fostering patient-physician relationship (5), exchanging information (5), responding to emotions (1), managing uncertainty (4), making decisions (9), and enabling patient self-management (5). An additional 13 recommendations were retained by women only: fostering patient-physician relationship (1), exchanging information (3), responding to emotions (2), making decisions (3), and enabling patient self-management (4). Some recommendations refer to processes (i.e., ask questions about lifestyle or views about risks/outcomes to understand patient preferences); others to tools (i.e., communication aid). Panelists recommended a separate consensus process to refine the language that clinicians use when describing DCIS.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to generate guidance on how to achieve PCC for DCIS. Organizations that deliver or oversee health care can use these recommendations on PCC for DCIS to plan, evaluate, or improve services. Ongoing research is needed to develop communication tools, and establish labels and language for DCIS that optimize communication.

Interventions are needed to support patient-provider decision-making for DCIS: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Prognostic and treatment uncertainty make ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) complex to manage. The purpose of this study was to describe research that evaluated DCIS communication experiences, needs and interventions among DCIS patients or physicians.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. English language studies that evaluated patient or physician DCIS needs, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies published from 1997 to 2016 were eligible for review, with a peak of 8 articles in year 2010. Women with DCIS lacked knowledge about the condition and its prognosis, although care partners were more informed, desired more information and experienced decisional conflict. Many chose mastectomy or prophylactic mastectomy, often based on physician's recommendation. Following treatment, women had anxiety and depression, often at levels similar to those with invasive breast cancer. Disparities were identified by education level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and literacy. Physicians said that they had difficulty explaining DCIS and many referred to DCIS as cancer. Despite the challenges reported by patients and physicians, only two studies developed interventions designed to improve patient-physician discussion and decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

As most women with DCIS undergo extensive treatment, and many experience treatment-related complications, the paucity of research on PE to improve and support informed decision-making for DCIS is profound. Research is needed to improve patient and provider discussions and decision-making for DCIS management.

Treatment decision-making in ductal carcinoma in situ: A mixed methods systematic review of women's experiences and information needs

OBJECTIVE

Decision-making in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is complex due to the heterogeneity of the disease. This study aimed to understand women's experience of making treatment decisions for DCIS, their information and support needs, and factors that influenced decisions.

METHODS

We searched six electronic databases, conference proceedings, and key authors. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria, and extracted findings. Thematic analysis was used to combine and summarise findings.

RESULTS

We identified six themes and 28 subthemes from 18 studies. Women with DCIS have knowledge deficits about DCIS, experience anxiety related to information given at diagnosis and the complexity of decision-making, and have misconceptions regarding risks and outcomes of treatment. Women's decisions are influenced by their understanding of risk, the clinical features of their DCIS, and the benefits and harms of treatment options. Women are dissatisfied with the decisional support available.

CONCLUSIONS

Informed and shared decision-making in this complex decision setting requires clear communication of information specific to DCIS and individual's, as well as decision support for patients and clinicians.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This approach would educate patients and clinicians, and assist clinicians in supporting patients to an evidence-based treatment plan that aligns with individual values and pReferences.

Risk perception and psychological morbidity in men at elevated risk for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

As prostate-specific antigen (psa) makes prostate cancer (pca) screening more accessible, more men are being identified with conditions that indicate high risk for developing pca, such as elevated psa and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (hgpin). In the present study, we assessed psychological well-being and risk perception in individuals with those high-risk conditions.

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of a psychological symptom survey, a trait risk-aversion survey, and a cancer-specific risk perception survey was administered to 168 patients with early-stage localized pca and 69 patients at high risk for pca (n = 16 hgpin, n = 53 psa > 4 ng/mL). Analysis of variance was used to examine differences in psychological well-being and appraisal of risk between the groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the pca group, the high-risk group perceived their risk of dying from something other than pca to be significantly lower (p = 0.007). However, pca patients reported significantly more clinically important psychological symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of prostate conditions that predict progression to cancer might not result in the psychological symptoms commonly experienced by pca patients, but does appear to be related to a distorted perception of the disease's mortal risk. Patients with pca experience reduced psychological well-being, but better understand the risks of pca recurrence and death. Education on the risks and outcomes of pca can help at-risk men to view health assessments with reduced worry.

How different terminology for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) impacts women's concern and management preferences: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

There are increasing rates of mastectomy and bi-lateral mastectomy in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). To help women avoid decisions that lead to unnecessary aggressive treatments, there have been recent calls to remove the cancer terminology from descriptions of DCIS. We investigated how different proposed terminologies for DCIS affect women's perceived concern and management preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a community sample of 26 Australian women varying by education and cancer screening experience. Women responded to a hypothetical scenario using terminology with and without the cancer term to describe DCIS.

RESULTS

Among a sample of women with no experience of a DCIS diagnosis, a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS elicited high concern regardless of the terminology used to describe it. Women generally exhibited stronger negative reactions when a cancer term was used to describe DCIS compared to a non-cancer term, and most preferred the diagnosis be given as a description of abnormal cells. Overall women expressed interest in watchful waiting for DCIS but displayed preferences for very frequent monitoring with this management approach.

CONCLUSION

Communicating a diagnosis of DCIS using terminology that does not include the cancer term was preferred by many women and may enable discussions about more conservative management options. However, women's preference for frequent monitoring during watchful waiting suggests women need more education and reassurance about this management approach.

Offering informed choice about breast screening

Over the last few years, there has been growing international concern about the risk of overdiagnosis in breast screening and about how to communicate this to women. There has also been an increasing policy drive to provide people with information to enable them to make an informed choice about screening. In response to this, a novel approach to developing the information about cancer screening has been adopted in England. This approach has integrated the perspectives of people eligible for screening, and experts in public engagement, informed choice, and communicating risk, as well as experts in screening. New information based on this approach has been provided to women invited for breast screening from September 2013. The new information explicitly sets out the choice to be made, and provides much more detail than previous information about overdiagnosis, the balance of benefits and harms, and the scientific uncertainties. The novel approach has also been adopted to develop new information for the bowel and cervical screening programmes in England, and could provide a model for communicating about cancer screening in other countries.

Adherence to anti-estrogen therapy in seniors with breast cancer: how well are we doing?

A third of breast cancers (BC) occur in women ≥65 years (seniors). Anti-estrogen therapy (AET) significantly reduces BC recurrence and death. This study characterizes determinants of adherence to AET in seniors with BC. Provincial cancer registry and administrative claims data were accessed for all non-metastatic BC diagnosed in Quebec (1998-2005) to identify seniors treated for 5 years with AET. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess the association with patient, disease, and physician characteristics and the 5-year medication possession ratio (MPR) for each patient. 4,715 women were included (mean age: 72.9). Mean MPR was 83.5%, 79% of patients reached a 5-year MPR of ≥80%, and 34% discontinued AET at some point during treatment. The cumulative probability of discontinuation was 33.8% (mean time to discontinuation 2.3 years). The MPR decreased with increasing age and non-BC related hospitalizations, p < 0.05. Each new medication added during the 5-years decreased the MPR by 0.3% (p < 0.05). Women with in situ disease, on antidepressants at baseline, or treated with Tamoxifen had a lower MPR by 6.5% (p = 0.0002), 4.7% (p = 0.003) and 6% (p = 0.001), respectively. Switching AET type was associated with a lower MPR by 5.3% (p = 0.002) if the switch occurred during the first year. Optimal 5-year adherence to AET in seniors with BC remained a challenge and medication discontinuation rates were high. Advanced age, increasing number of hospitalizations, in situ disease, baseline use of antidepressants, Tamoxifen (versus aromatase inhibitors), early switches of AET type, and newly added medications significantly reduced the MPR.

Ductal carcinoma in situ: knowledge of associated risks and prognosis among Latina and non-Latina white women

While not itself life-threatening, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive disease if untreated, and confers an increased risk of future breast cancer. We investigated knowledge of DCIS among a cohort of English- and Spanish-speaking Latina and English-speaking non-Latina white women previously treated for DCIS. We examined knowledge of DCIS with four true/false statements about risk of invasive disease, breast cancer recurrence, and prognosis. For each knowledge statement, we modeled the odds of a correct answer by language-ethnicity (English-speaking Latinas, Spanish-speaking Latinas, and English-speaking whites) adjusting for demographics, health history, and treatment factors. Of 710 participants, 52 % were English-speaking whites, 21 % English-speaking Latinas, and 27 % Spanish-speaking Latinas. Less than half (41 %) of participants were aware that DCIS is not life-threatening and only 32 % knew that surgical treatment choice does not impact mortality; whereas two-thirds (67 %) understood that DCIS confers increased risk of future breast cancer, and almost all (92 %) knew that DCIS, if untreated, could become invasive. Only three Spanish-speakers used professional interpreters during discussions with their physicians. In adjusted analyses, compared to English-speaking whites, both English- and Spanish-speaking Latinas had significantly lower odds of knowing that DCIS was not life-threatening (OR, 95 % CI 0.6, 0.4-0.9 and 0.5, 0.3-0.9, respectively). In contrast, Spanish-speaking Latinas had a twofold higher odds of knowing that DCIS increases risk of future breast cancer (OR, 95 % CI 2.6, 1.6-4.4), but English-speaking Latinas were no different from English-speaking whites. Our data suggest that physicians are more successful at conveying the risks conferred by DCIS than the nuances of DCIS as a non-life-threatening diagnosis. This uneven communication is most marked for Spanish-speaking Latinas. In addition to the use of professional interpreters, efforts to create culturally and linguistically standardized information could improve knowledge and engagement in informed decision making for all DCIS patients.

Challenges in ductal carcinoma in situ risk communication and decision-making: report from an American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute workshop

In September 2010, the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute convened a conference to review current issues in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) risk communication and decision-making and to identify directions for future research. Specific topics included patient and health care provider knowledge and attitudes about DCIS and its treatment, how to explain DCIS to patients given the heterogeneity of the disease, consideration of nomenclature changes, and the usefulness of decision tools/aids. This report describes the proceedings of the workshop in the context of the current literature and discusses future directions. Evidence suggests that there is a lack of clarity about the implications and risks of a diagnosis of DCIS among patients, providers, and researchers. Research is needed to understand better the biology and mechanisms of the progression of DCIS to invasive breast cancer and the factors that predict those subtypes of DCIS that do not progress, as well as efforts to improve the communication and informed decision-making surrounding DCIS.