Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of invasive disease in patients preoperatively diagnosed with ductal carcinoma without stromal invasion, with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is sometimes upstaged to invasive disease postoperatively. Our objective was to clarify the predictive factors of invasive disease using preoperative imaging and to investigate the positive ratio of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) and the incidence of invasive disease.

Methods

The subjects were 402 patients with preoperatively diagnosed ductal carcinoma without stromal invasion who underwent breast surgery with concomitant SLN surgery in January 2007 to December 2016. Of the 306 included patients, all 306 patients underwent preoperative MRI and US assessment. Outcomes were analyzed for significance using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Of the 306 patients, 115 (37.6%) had invasive disease and 191 (62.4%) had DCIS only. Of the 115 patients with invasive disease, 5 (4.4%) and 4 (3.5%) had macro- and micrometastases in SLN. On the other hand, of the 191 patients with DCIS, only 1 (0.5%) had a micrometastasis. Predictors of invasive disease in the univariate analysis included having a palpable mass, were varied by biopsy method, having a US hypoechoic mass, MRI enhancement, or MRI large enhanced lesion; the size of the mass enhancement ≥ 1.1 cm or a spread of non-mass enhancement ≥ 3.1 cm (P = 0.003). Predictors of invasive disease in the multivariate analysis included US hypoechoic mass and MRI large enhanced lesion.

Conclusion

We need to perform SLN biopsy for preoperatively diagnosed DCIS when patients have predictors of invasive disease, but SLN biopsy will no longer be essential for patients when they have no predictors of invasive disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brinton LA, Sherman ME, Carreon JD, Anderson WF. Recent trends in breast cancer among younger women in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(22):1643–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(3):170–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cox CE, Nguyen K, Gray RJ, Salud C, Ku NN, Dupont E, et al. Importance of lymphatic mapping in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): why map DCIS? Am Surg. 2001;67(6):513–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yen TW, Hunt KK, Ross MI, et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200(4):516–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mittendorf EA, Arciero CA, Gutchell V, Hooke J, Shriver CD. Core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ:an indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Curr Surg. 2005;62(2):253–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goyal A, Douglasones A, Monypenny I, et al. Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98(3):311–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moran CJ, Kell MR, Flanagan FL, Kennedy M, Gorey TF, Kerin MJ. Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in high—risk ductal carcinoma in situ patients. Am J Surg. 2007;194(2):172–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan JC, McCready DR, Easson AM, Leong WL. Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma—in—situ treated by mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(2):638–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cserni G, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V, Arisio R, Bori R, Peterse JL, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in staging smallbreast carcinomas. Pathol Oncol Res. 2007;13:1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pendas S, Dauway E, Giuliano R, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:15–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Klauber-DeMore N, Tan LK, Liberman L, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy: is it indicated in patients with high-risk ductal carcinoma-in-situ and ductal carcinoma-in-situ with microinvasion? Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:636–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cox CE, Nguyen K, Gray RJ, et al. Importance of lymphatic mapping in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): why map DCIS? Am Surg. 2001;67:513–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Intra M, Veronesi P, Mazzarol G, et al. Axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Surg. 2003;138:309–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brinkmann E, Rademaker A, Morrow M. Is sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) justified [abstract]? Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:S57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van Roozendaal LM, Goorts B, Klinkert M, Keymeulen K, De Vries B, Strobbe LJA, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted in DCIS patients treated with breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(3):517–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. De Gournay E, Guyomard A, Coutant C, Boulet S, Aveux P, Causeret S, et al. Impact of sentinel node biopsy on long-term quality of life in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:2783–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Purushotham AD, Upponi S, Klevesath MB, Bobrow L, Millar K, Myles JP, et al. Morbidity after sentinel lymph node biopsy in primary breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(19):4312–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Del Bianco P, Zavagno G, Burelli P, Scalco G, Barutta L, Carraro P, et al. Morbidity comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy versus conventional axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer patients: results of the sen- tinella-GIVOM Italian randomised clinical trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(5):508–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(9):599–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Langer I, Guller U, Berclaz G, Koechli OR, Schaer G, Fehr MK, et al. Morbidityof sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLN) alone versus SLN and completion axillary lymph node dissection after breast cancer surgery: a prospective Swiss multicenter study on 659 patients. Ann Surg. 2007;245(3):452–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilke LG, McCall LM, Posther KE, Whitworth PW, Reintgen DS, Leitch AM, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node biopsy: results from a prospective international cooperative group trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:491–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schneider C, Trocha S, McKinley B, Shaw J, Bielby S, Blackhurst D, et al. The use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ. Am Surg. 2010;76(9):943–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Miyake T, Shimazu K, Ohashi H, Taguchi T, Ueda S, Nakayama T, et al. Indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer when core biopsy shows ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg. 2011;202(1):59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ozkan Gurdal S, Cabioglu N, Ozcinar B, Muslumanoglu M, Ozmen V, Kecer M, et al. Factors predicting microinvasion in Ductal Carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(1):55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Prendeville S, Ryan C, Feeley L, Connell F, Browne TJ, Sullivan MJ, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is not warranted following a core needle biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. The Breast. 2015;24:197–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core- needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2011;260:119–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Osako T, Iwase T, Ushijima M, Horii R, Fukami Y, Kimura K, et al. Incidence and prediction of invasive disease and nodal metastasis in preoperatively diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Sci. 2014;105(5):576–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jakub JW, Murphy BL, Gonzalez AB, Conners AL, Henrichsen TL, Maimone S, et al. A validated nomogram to predict upstaging of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ to invasive disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):2915–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kondo T, Hayashi N, Ohde S, Suzuki K, Yoshida A, Yagata H, et al. A model to predict upstaging to invasive carcinoma in patients preoperatively diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(5):476–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S, Aydogan F, DeSantis S, Barry WT, et al. Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(8):739–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjyuku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan

    Hinako Maeda, Tetsu Hayashida, Rurina Watanuki, Masayuki Kikuchi, Ayako Nakashoji, Takamichi Yokoe, Tomoko Seki, Maiko Takahashi & Yuko Kitagawa

Authors
  1. Hinako Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tetsu Hayashida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rurina Watanuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masayuki Kikuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ayako Nakashoji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Takamichi Yokoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tomoko Seki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maiko Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yuko Kitagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tetsu Hayashida.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maeda, H., Hayashida, T., Watanuki, R. et al. Predictors of invasive disease in patients preoperatively diagnosed with ductal carcinoma without stromal invasion, with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US). Breast Cancer 28, 398–404 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01187-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01187-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation