Confusion Over Differences in Registration and Randomization Criteria for the LORIS (Low-Risk DCIS) Trial

Update on Management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) represents 18% to 25% of all diagnosed breast cancers, and is a noninvasive, nonobligate precursor lesion to invasive cancer. The diagnosis of DCIS represents a wide range of disease, including lesions with both low and high risk of progression to invasive cancer and recurrence. Over the past decade, research on the topic of DCIS has focused on the possibility of tailoring treatment for patients according to their risk for progression and recurrence, which is based on clinicopathologic, biomolecular and genetic factors. These efforts are ongoing, with recently completed and continuing clinical trials spanning the continuum of cancer care. We conducted a review to identify recent advances on the topic of diagnosis, risk stratification and management of DCIS. While novel imaging techniques have increased the rate of DCIS diagnosis, questions persist regarding the optimal management of lesions that would not be identified with conventional methods. Additionally, among trials investigating the potential for omission of surgery and use of active surveillance, 2 trials have completed accrual and 2 clinical trials are continuing to enroll patients. Identification of novel genetic patterns is expanding our potential for risk stratification and aiding our ability to de-escalate radiation and systemic therapies for DCIS. These advances provide hope for tailoring of DCIS treatment in the near future.

Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review

BACKGROUND

Population mammographic screening for breast cancer has led to large increases in the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Active surveillance has been proposed as a management strategy for low-risk DCIS to mitigate against potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, clinicians and patients remain reluctant to choose active surveillance, even within a trial setting. Re-calibration of the diagnostic threshold for low-risk DCIS and/or use of a label that does not include the word 'cancer' might encourage the uptake of active surveillance and other conservative treatment options. We aimed to identify and collate relevant epidemiological evidence to inform further discussion on these ideas.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for low-risk DCIS studies in four categories: (1) natural history; (2) subclinical cancer found at autopsy; (3) diagnostic reproducibility (two or more pathologist interpretations at a single time point); and (4) diagnostic drift (two or more pathologist interpretations at different time points). Where we identified a pre-existing systematic review, the search was restricted to studies published after the inclusion period of the review. Two authors screened records, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. We undertook a narrative synthesis of the included evidence within each category.

RESULTS

Natural History (n = 11): one systematic review and nine primary studies were included, but only five provided evidence on the prognosis of women with low-risk DCIS. These studies reported that women with low-risk DCIS had comparable outcomes whether or not they had surgery. The risk of invasive breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 6.5% (7.5 years) to 10.8% (10 years). The risk of dying from breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 1.2 to 2.2% (10 years). Subclinical cancer at autopsy (n = 1): one systematic review of 13 studies estimated the mean prevalence of subclinical in situ breast cancer to be 8.9%. Diagnostic reproducibility (n = 13): two systematic reviews and 11 primary studies found at most moderate agreement in differentiating low-grade DCIS from other diagnoses. Diagnostic drift: no studies found.

CONCLUSION

Epidemiological evidence supports consideration of relabelling and/or recalibrating diagnostic thresholds for low-risk DCIS. Such diagnostic changes would need agreement on the definition of low-risk DCIS and improved diagnostic reproducibility.

Surgical upstaging rates in patients meeting the eligibility for active surveillance trials

PURPOSE

Four clinical active surveillance trials including LORIS, COMET, LORD and LORETTA, are being conducted to assess whether women with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ can safely avoid surgery. The present study aimed to determine the rate of upstaging to invasive cancer among patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and to evaluate the incidence of upstaging in patients meeting the eligibility criteria for four active surveillance clinical trials.

METHODS

The present study initially enrolled 180 patients with 183 calcifications who received the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ by biopsy. Patients were classified as eligible for four clinical trials according to the respective inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 152 patients with 155 calcifications were analyzed. Of these, 32 (21%) were upstaged to invasive disease based on the final pathological analysis of surgical specimens. Of the 152 patients, 53 (35%), 90 (59%), 24 (16%) and 34 (22%) met the eligibility criteria for the LORIS, COMET, LORD and LORETTA trial, respectively. Among patients with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, 10 (19%), 14 (16%), 6 (25%) and 4 (12%) patients were upstaged to invasive disease in LORIS, COMET, LORD and LORETTA, respectively. The upstaging to pT1b or higher rates were 2% (1/53), 3% (3/90), 0% (0/24) and 3% (1/34) in LORIS, COMET, LORD and LORETTA, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The upstaging rate in patients eligible for the clinical active surveillance trials was 12-25%. Although the rate of upstaging to pT1b or higher was low, further studies are required to determine the rates of upstaging to invasive cancer and the risk factors among patients with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ.

Interobserver Variability in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast

OBJECTIVES

Since most patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast are treated upon diagnosis, evidence on its natural progression to invasive carcinoma is limited. It is estimated that around half of the screen-detected DCIS lesions would have remained indolent if they had never been detected. Many patients with DCIS are therefore probably overtreated. Four ongoing randomized noninferiority trials explore active surveillance as a treatment option. Eligibility for these trials is mainly based on histopathologic features. Hence, the call for reproducible histopathologic assessment has never sounded louder.

METHODS

Here, the available classification systems for DCIS are discussed in depth.

RESULTS

This comprehensive review illustrates that histopathologic evaluation of DCIS is characterized by significant interobserver variability. Future digitalization of pathology, combined with development of deep learning algorithms or so-called artificial intelligence, may be an innovative solution to tackle this problem. However, implementation of digital pathology is not within reach for each laboratory worldwide. An alternative classification system could reduce the disagreement among histopathologists who use "conventional" light microscopy: the introduction of dichotomous histopathologic assessment is likely to increase interobserver concordance.

CONCLUSIONS

Reproducible histopathologic assessment is a prerequisite for robust risk stratification and adequate clinical decision-making. Two-tier histopathologic assessment might enhance the quality of care.

Interobserver variability in upfront dichotomous histopathological assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the DCISion study

Histopathological assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ, a nonobligate precursor of invasive breast cancer, is characterized by considerable interobserver variability. Previously, post hoc dichotomization of multicategorical variables was used to determine the "ideal" cutoffs for dichotomous assessment. The present international multicenter study evaluated interobserver variability among 39 pathologists who performed upfront dichotomous evaluation of 149 consecutive ductal carcinomas in situ. All pathologists independently assessed nuclear atypia, necrosis, solid ductal carcinoma in situ architecture, calcifications, stromal architecture, and lobular cancerization in one digital slide per lesion. Stromal inflammation was assessed semiquantitatively. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were quantified as percentages and dichotomously assessed with a cutoff at 50%. Krippendorff's alpha (KA), Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient were calculated for the appropriate variables. Lobular cancerization (KA = 0.396), nuclear atypia (KA = 0.422), and stromal architecture (KA = 0.450) showed the highest interobserver variability. Stromal inflammation (KA = 0.564), dichotomously assessed tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (KA = 0.520), and comedonecrosis (KA = 0.539) showed slightly lower interobserver disagreement. Solid ductal carcinoma in situ architecture (KA = 0.602) and calcifications (KA = 0.676) presented with the lowest interobserver variability. Semiquantitative assessment of stromal inflammation resulted in a slightly higher interobserver concordance than upfront dichotomous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes assessment (KA = 0.564 versus KA = 0.520). High stromal inflammation corresponded best with dichotomously assessed tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes when the cutoff was set at 10% (kappa = 0.881). Nevertheless, a post hoc tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes cutoff set at 20% resulted in the highest interobserver agreement (KA = 0.669). Despite upfront dichotomous evaluation, the interobserver variability remains considerable and is at most acceptable, although it varies among the different histopathological features. Future studies should investigate its impact on ductal carcinoma in situ prognostication. Forthcoming machine learning algorithms may be useful to tackle this substantial diagnostic challenge.

Grading Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast - What's Wrong with It?

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast is a non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer, and at its lower risk end might not need treatment, a hypothesis tested in several currently running randomized clinical trials. This review describes the heterogeneity of grading ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). First it considers differences between low and high grade DCIS, and then it looks at several grading schemes and highlights how different these are, not only in the features considered for defining a given grade but also in their wording of a given variable seen in the grade in question. Rather than being fully comprehensive, the review aims to illustrate the inconsistencies. Reproducibility studies on grading mostly suggestive of moderate agreement on DCIS differentiation are also illustrated. The need for a well structured, more uniform and widely accepted language for grading DCIS is urged to avoid misunderstanding based misclassifications and improper treatment selection.

A retrospective alternative for active surveillance trials for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is a nonobligate precursor of invasive breast cancer, accounting for 20 % of screen-detected breast cancers. Little is known about the natural progression of DCIS because most patients undergo surgery upon diagnosis. Many DCIS patients are likely being overtreated, as it is believed that only around 50 % of DCIS will progress to invasive carcinoma. Robust prognostic markers for progression to invasive carcinoma are lacking. In the past, studies have investigated women who developed a recurrence after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and compared them with those who did not. However, where there is no recurrence, the patient has probably been adequately treated. The present narrative review advocates a new research strategy, wherein only those patients with a recurrence are studied. Approximately half of the recurrences are invasive cancers, and half are DCIS. So-called "recurrences" are probably most often the result of residual disease. The new approach allows us to ask: why did some residual DCIS evolve to invasive cancers and others not? This novel strategy compares the group of patients that developed in situ recurrence with the group of patients that developed invasive recurrence after BCS. The differences between these groups could then be used to develop a robust risk stratification tool. This tool should estimate the risk of synchronous and metachronous invasive carcinoma when DCIS is diagnosed in a biopsy. Identification of DCIS patients at low risk for developing invasive carcinoma will individualize future therapy and prevent overtreatment.