Prognostische Faktoren beim duktalen Carcinoma in situ

Active Surveillance for Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are relatively common breast lesions on the same spectrum of disease. Atypical ductal hyperblasia is a nonmalignant, high-risk lesion, and DCIS is a noninvasive malignancy. While a benefit of screening mammography is early cancer detection, it also leads to increased biopsy diagnosis of noninvasive lesions. Previously, treatment guidelines for both entities included surgical excision because of the risk of upgrade to invasive cancer after surgery and risk of progression to invasive cancer for DCIS. However, this universal management approach is not optimal for all patients because most lesions are not upgraded after surgery. Furthermore, some DCIS lesions do not progress to clinically significant invasive cancer. Overtreatment of high-risk lesions and DCIS is considered a burden on patients and clinicians and is a strain on the health care system. Extensive research has identified many potential histologic, clinical, and imaging factors that may predict ADH and DCIS upgrade and thereby help clinicians select which patients should undergo surgery and which may be appropriate for active surveillance (AS) with imaging. Additionally, multiple clinical trials are currently underway to evaluate whether AS for DCIS is feasible for a select group of patients. Recent advances in MRI, artificial intelligence, and molecular markers may also have an important role to play in stratifying patients and delineating best management guidelines. This review article discusses the available evidence regarding the feasibility and limitations of AS for ADH and DCIS, as well as recent advances in patient risk stratification.

Accuracy of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared to Mammography in the Preoperative Detection and Measurement of Pure Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Retrospective Analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) hinders imaging detection due to multifocal appearance and discontinuous growth. Preoperative determination of its extent is therefore challenging. Aim of this study was to investigate the additional benefit of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to mammography (MG) in the diagnosis of DCIS according to size and grading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 295 patients with biopsy-proven, pure DCIS. Mean patient age was 57.0 years (27-87 years). All patients obtained MG. Additional MRI was performed in 41.7% (123/295). Mammographic breast density, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), tumor size and grading were analysed. Tumor size on MG and MRI were compared to histopathological size of the surgical specimen.

RESULTS

Mean tumor size was 39.6 mm. DCIS was occult on MG in 24.4% (30/123) and on MRI in 1.6% (2/123). Size was underestimated by 4.6 mm (mean) mammographically. DCIS was high grade in 54.5% (67/123), intermediate grade in 40.7% (50/123) and low grade in 4.9% (6/123). MG was exact regarding tumor size in low grade DCIS, underestimated intermediate grade DCIS by 1 mm (median) and high grade DCIS by 10.5 mm. MRI overestimated low grade DCIS by 1 mm (median), was exact regarding intermediate grade DCIS and underestimated high grade DCIS by 1 mm. BPE did not influence tumor detection and measurement.

CONCLUSION

MRI outperforms MG in the detection and size estimation of DCIS and can reduce positive margin rates.

Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ

Background

To implement informed shared decision-making (ISDM) in breast care centres, we developed and piloted an inter-professional complex intervention.

Methods

We developed an intervention consisting of three components: an evidence-based patient decision aid (DA) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ, a decision-coaching led by specialised nurses (breast care nurses and oncology nurses) and structured physician encounters.

In order to enable professionals to gain ISDM competencies, we developed and tested a curriculum-based training programme for specialised nurses and a workshop for physicians. After successful testing of the components, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of the entire revised intervention in two breast care centres. Here the acceptance of the intervention by women and professionals, the applicability to the breast care centres’ procedures, women’s knowledge, patient involvement in treatment decision-making assessed with the MAPPIN’SDM-observer instrument MAPPIN’O_dyad, and barriers to and facilitators of the implementation were taken into consideration. We used questionnaires, structured verbal and written feedback and video recordings. Qualitative data were analysed descriptively, and mean values and ranges of quantitative data were calculated.

Results

To test the DA, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 27 women. Six expert reviews were obtained. The components of the nurse training were tested with 18 specialised nurses and 19 health science students. The development and piloting of the components were successful. The pilot test of the entire intervention included seven patients. In general, the intervention is applicable. Patients attained adequate knowledge (range of correct answers: 9–11 of 11). On average, a basic level of patient involvement in treatment decision-making was observed for nurses and patient–nurse dyads (M(MAPPIN-O_dyad): 2.15 and M(MAPPIN-O_nurse): 1.90). Relevant barriers were identified; physicians barely tolerated women’s preferences that were not in line with the medical recommendation. Classifying women as inappropriate for ISDM due to age or education led physicians to neglect eligible women during the recruitment phase.

Conclusion

Decision-coaching is feasible. Nevertheless, there are some indications that structural changes are needed for long-term implementation. We are currently evaluating the intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 breast care centres.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-017-0548-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of Histopathological Factors, Patient History and Therapeutic Variables on Recurrence-free Survival after Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: 8-Year Follow-up and Questionnaire Survey

Introduction: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a premalignant lesion of the glandular component of the breast and a precursor lesion of invasive breast cancer. In recent decades the incidence of DCIS has risen continuously, mainly because of more extensive screening and more advanced diagnostic procedures. There is an increasing need for evidence-based treatment guidelines which will protect patients as far as possible from recurrence or invasive cancer but also from overtreatment. This retrospective single-center clinical trial analyzed recurrence-free survival times, rates of invasive and non-invasive events, and the impact of patient history, histopathological variables and therapeutic factors on recurrence-free survival times. Material and Methods: A total of 200 patients who underwent surgery between 2000 and 2007 for pure DCIS were included in the study. As part of follow-up a questionnaire was sent to patients and their respective gynecologists. Results: In the follow-up period, 12.5 % (n = 25) of the 200 patients had recurrence (invasive or non-invasive event). Menopausal status, tumor grade and tumor size were significantly associated with recurrence. Low-grade DCIS was significantly more often hormone receptor-positive than high-grade DCIS. Patients who had postoperative radiotherapy significantly more often also received endocrine drug treatment. There was a significant association between younger patient age and drug treatment. The study found that in the investigated cohort, premenopausal women had a significantly shorter recurrence-free time compared to postmenopausal women. Conclusion: This paper summarizes the current literature on DCIS. There is a need for more prospective clinical trials to improve the prognosis of premenopausal women with large and hormone receptor-positive DCIS.

Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women with breast cancer want to participate in treatment decision-making. Guidelines have confirmed the right of informed shared decision-making. However, previous research has shown that the implementation of informed shared decision-making is suboptimal for reasons of limited resources of physicians, power imbalances between patients and physicians and missing evidence-based patient information. We developed an informed shared decision-making program for women with primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The program provides decision coaching for women by specialized nurses and aims at supporting involvement in decision-making and informed choices. In this trial, the informed shared decision-making program will be evaluated in breast care centers.

METHODS/DESIGN

A cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare the informed shared decision-making program with standard care. The program comprises an evidence-based patient decision aid and training of physicians (2 hours) and specialized breast care and oncology nurses (4 days) in informed shared decision-making. Sixteen certified breast care centers will be included, with 192 women with primary DCIS being recruited. Primary outcome is the extent of patients' involvement in shared decision-making as assessed by the MAPPIN-Odyad (Multifocal approach to the 'sharing' in shared decision-making: observer instrument dyad). Secondary endpoints include the sub-measures of the MAPPIN-inventory (MAPPIN-Onurse, MAPPIN-Ophysician, MAPPIN-Opatient, MAPPIN-Qnurse, MAPPIN-Qpatient and MAPPIN-Qphysician), informed choice, decisional conflict and the duration of encounters. It is expected that decision coaching and the provision of evidence-based patient decision aids will increase patients' involvement in decision-making with informed choices and reduce decisional conflicts and duration of physician encounters. Furthermore, an accompanying process evaluation will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the implementation of decision coaches in German breast care centers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46305518 , date of registration: 5 June 2015.

Breast MRI of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: sensitivity of diagnosis and influence of lesion characteristics

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the sensitivity of breast MRI in the detection of pure DCIS and to analyze the influence of lesion type and nuclear grade.

METHODS

58 consecutive patients with pathologically proven pure DCIS and preoperatively performed breast MRI were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Sensitivities in the detection of DCIS were calculated for MRI and mammography (Mx). Influence of MRI lesion type and nuclear grading on DCIS diagnosis was evaluated.

RESULTS

MRI detected pure DCIS with a sensitivity of 79.3%. The sensitivity of Mx was lower (69%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.345). 46.2% of the DCIS presented as enhancing mass and 53.8% as non-mass-like enhancement (NMLE). None of the masses but 21.4% (n=6) of the NMLE were underestimated as probably benign (BI-RADS 3). MRI measured lesion sizes showed a moderate correlation (r=0.74) with histopathologically measured lesion sizes. MRI detection rate of DCIS decreased significantly (p=0.0458) with increasing nuclear grade. Calculated sensitivities were 100% for low-grade DCIS, 84.6% for intermediate-grade DCIS, and 66.7% for high-grade DCIS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study MRI could detect pure DCIS more sensitively than Mx. Despite of missing statistically significance preoperative MRI seems to be helpful in patients with DCIS who are eligible for breast conservation. This applies in particular to patients with non-high-grade DCIS because those were significantly more often positive on MRI and significantly more often negative on Mx. Misinterpretation occurs especially in cases of NMLE and high-grade DCIS and therefore a correlation with Mx is also recommended.

Ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: prognostic implications, long-term outcomes, and role of axillary evaluation

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical-pathologic features and long-term outcomes for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) vs. DCIS with microinvasion (DCISM) treated with breast conservation therapy (BCT), to assess the impact of microinvasion.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 393 patients with DCIS/DCISM from our database were analyzed to assess differences in clinical-pathologic features and outcomes for the two cohorts.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 8.94 years, and the mean age was 55.8 years for the entire group. The DCISM cohort was comprised of 72 of 393 patients (18.3%). Surgical evaluation of the axilla was performed in 58.3% (n = 42) of DCISM vs. 18.1% (n = 58) of DCIS, with only 1 of 42 DCISM (2.3%) vs. 0 of 58 DCIS with axillary metastasis. Surgical axillary evaluation was not an independent predictor of local-regional relapse (LRR), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), or overall survival (OS) in Cox proportional hazards analysis (p > 0.05). For the DCIS vs. DCISM groups, respectively, the 10-year breast relapse-free survival was 89.0% vs. 90.7% (p = 0.36), DRFS was 98.5% vs. 97.9% (p = 0.78), and OS was 93.2% vs. 95.7% (p = 0.95). The presence of microinvasion did not correlate with LRR, age, presentation, race, family history, margin status, and use of adjuvant hormonal therapy (all p > 0.05). In univariate analysis, pathology (DCIS vs. DCISM) was not an independent predictor of LRR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-4.30; p = 0.36), DRFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.07-6.95; p = 0.77), or OS (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.28-3.82; p = 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data imply that the natural history of DCISM closely resembles that of DCIS, with a low incidence of local-regional and distant failures. On the basis of our large dataset, the incidence of axillary metastasis in DCISM appears to be small and not appear to correlate to outcomes, and thus, microinvasion alone should not be the sole criterion for more aggressive treatment.

[The role of the pathologist in mammography screening]

Within the framework of mammography screening programmes the expertise of the pathologist is embedded in an interdisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. The quality of histopathological diagnosis not only depends on the expertise of the pathologist, but also requires skillful co-operation with the radiologist and the gynecologist who are both responsible for determining the medical indications for further radiographic and surgical tests and must ensure appropriate tissue samples are taken for non-palpable lesions. Bearing this process in mind it becomes clear that increased expertise in interventional tissue sampling leads to histological samples which are more representative. If the samples are not representative, their histological evaluation does not permit a conclusive statement on the origin of tissue abnormalities shown by mammography. At the mammography unit in Wiesbaden it was demonstrated that breast tissue punches almost always allow a precise histological diagnosis of tissue abnormalities and are at the same time appropriate for additional immunohistochemistry, such as for hormone receptors on carcinoma cells. Non-representative tissue samples are the exception.