Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

New Developments in Assessing Risk of Local Recurrence in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ after Lumpectomy and Breast Radiation

  • Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (EP Mamounas, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast comprises nearly 25 % of all diagnoses of breast cancer. The current paradigm for management of DCIS consists of breast-conserving surgery followed by post-operative radiotherapy. The goal of the treatment of DCIS is to reduce the risk of local recurrence (and invasive local recurrence) to prevent the detrimental psychological impact of recurrence and minimize the need for additional treatment. A number of clinical, pathological, and molecular variables have been identified as predictive markers of recurrence and can be used to help risk stratify women with this diagnosis. We present here a review of current markers of recurrence, risk prediction tools, and future directions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Ernster VL et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(20):1546–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gotzsche PC, Jorgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD001877.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Welch HG, Black WC. Using autopsy series to estimate the disease “reservoir” for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: how much more breast cancer can we find? Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):1023–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donker M et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ: 15-year recurrence rates and outcome after a recurrence, from the EORTC 10853 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32):4054–9 (Large randomized study of radiotherapy benefit).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wapnir IL et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(6):478–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ernster VL et al. Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results program. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:953–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. (EBCTCG), E.B.C.T.C.G., et al., Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010, 2010: p. 162–177.

  8. Holmberg L et al. Absolute risk reductions for local recurrence after postoperative radiotherapy after sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1247–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cuzick J et al. Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(1):21–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Allred DC et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on NSABP protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(12):1268–73 (Large randomised study of Tamoxifen benefit).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Stuart KE et al. Long-term outcomes of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:890.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Yen TW et al. Physician recommendations regarding tamoxifen and patient utilization of tamoxifen after surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2004;100(5):942–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Welch HG, Passow HJ. Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):448–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Welch HG, Frankel BA. Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her “life saved” by that screening. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(22):2043–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rakovitch E et al. The management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a screened population-based analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;101(2):335–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Baxter NN et al. Trends in the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(6):443–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rakovitch E et al. Can we select individuals with low risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? A population-based outcomes analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138(2):581–90 (Risk assessment in DCIS).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cutuli B et al. Breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the French Cancer Centers’ experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;2002:868–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jhingran A et al. Age as a predictor of outcome for women with DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation: the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;2002:804–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alvarado R et al. Biology, treatment, and outcome in very young and older women with DCIS. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(12):3777–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Solin LJ et al. Long-term outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 2005;103(6):1137–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lalani, N., et al., Long-term outcomes of hypofractionation versus conventional radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. LID - S0360-3016(14)03533-0 [pii] LID - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.026 [doi]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014. Sep. 11. pii. : S0360. -3016. (14)03533. -0. doi. : 10. 1016. /j. ijrobp. 2014. 07. 026, 2014: p. S0360-S3016.

  23. Vicini FA, Recht A. Age at diagnosis and outcome for women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ of the breast: a critical review of the literature. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(11):2736–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vicini FA et al. Impact of young age on outcome in patients with ductal carcinoma-in-situ treated with breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(2):296–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Li CI et al. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988–2001. Cancer. 2006;106(10):2104–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ben-David MA et al. Long-term results of conservative surgery and radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ using lung density correction: the University of Michigan experience. Breast J. 2007;13(4):392–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang SY et al. Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(1):1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hiramatsu H et al. Local recurrence after conservative surgery and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: possible importance of family history. Cancer J Sci Am. 1995;1(1):55–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Szelei-Stevens KA et al. The influence of young age and positive family history of breast cancer on the prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision with or without radiation therapy or by mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(4):943–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bailes AA et al. Impact of race and ethnicity on features and outcome of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 2013;119(1):150–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Shamliyan T et al. Association between patient and tumor characteristics with clinical outcomes in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(41):121–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Collins LC et al. Risk factors for non-invasive and invasive local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(2):453–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Stark A et al. Disease-free probability after the first primary ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a comparison between African-American and White-American women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131(2):561–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Pinder SE et al. A new pathological system for grading DCIS with improved prediction of local recurrence: results from the UKCCCR/ANZ DCIS trial. Br J Cancer. 2010;103(1):94–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Rakovitch E et al. A population-based validation study of the DCIS Score predicting recurrence risk in individuals treated by breast-conserving surgery alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;152(2):389–98 (Validation of Oncotype DCIS assay).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Solin LJ et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(10):701–10 (Oncotype DCIS assay).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Di Saverio S et al. 259 patients with DCIS of the breast applying USC/Van Nuys prognostic index: a retrospective review with long term follow up. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;109(3):405–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Macdonald HR et al. Margin width as the sole determinant of local recurrence after breast conservation in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg. 2006;192(4):420–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer—bigger is not better. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):79–82 (Discussion of margin threshold).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Warren JL et al. The frequency of ipsilateral second tumors after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS. Cancer. 2005;104(9):1840–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dunne C et al. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(10):1615–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang SY et al. Network meta-analysis of margin threshold for women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(7):507–16 (Meta-analysis of margin threshold).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kerlikowske K et al. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 2003;95(22):1692–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Collins LC et al. Relationship between clinical and pathologic features of ductal carcinoma in situ and patient age: an analysis of 657 patients. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(12):1802–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Lester, S.C., et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. 2009 [cited 2009; Available from: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/committees/cancer/cancer_protocols/2009/InvasiveBreast_09protocol.pdf.]

  46. Solin LJ et al. Surgical excision without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 12-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(33):3938–44 (Prospective cohort study of local excission alone).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Badve S., G.R.J., Baehner F.L., Solin L.J., et al., Correlation between the DCIS Score and traditional clinicopathologic features in the prospectively designed E5194 clinical validation study. J Clin Oncol, 2012. 30(Suppl; abstr1005).

  48. Fisher ER et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight-year update of Protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86(3):429–38 (Randomized trial of radiation).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Miller NA et al. In situ duct carcinoma of the breast: clinical and histopathologic factors and association with recurrent carcinoma. Breast J. 2001;7(5):292–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fisher ER et al. Pathologic variables predictive of breast events in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;128(1):86–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Smith BD et al. Effectiveness of radiation therapy in older women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(18):1302–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sikand K et al. Sections of the nipple and quadrants in mastectomy specimens for carcinoma are of limited value. J Clin Pathol. 2005;58(5):543–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Rakovitch E et al. Significance of multifocality in ductal carcinoma in situ: outcomes of women treated with breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(35):5591–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wong JS et al. Eight-year update of a prospective study of wide excision alone for small low- or intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;143(2):343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Perou CM et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):747–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Roka S et al. High nuclear grade and negative estrogen receptor are significant risk factors for recurrence in DCIS. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30(3):243–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Provenzano E et al. Biological markers that predict clinical recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(5):622–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Curigliano G et al. Risk of subsequent in situ and invasive breast cancer in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(4):682–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Rakovitch E et al. HER2/neu and Ki-67 expression predict non-invasive recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(6):1160–5 (Significance of Her2 + Ki67 in DCIS).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Han, K., et al., Expression of HER2neu in ductal carcinoma in situ is associated with local recurrence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol), 2011.

  61. Borgquist S et al. The prognostic role of HER2 expression in ductal breast carcinoma in situ (DCIS); a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:468 (Her2 expression in DCIS).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Noh JM et al. HER-2 overexpression is not associated with increased ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence in DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. Breast. 2013;22(5):894–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Williams KE et al. Molecular phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(5):1019–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kepple J et al. The receptor expression pattern in ductal carcinoma in situ predicts recurrence. Am J Surg. 2006;192(1):68–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ringberg A et al. Cell biological factors in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast-relationship to ipsilateral local recurrence and histopathological characteristics. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37(12):1514–22 (Significance of biomarkers in DCIS).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chasle J et al. Immunohistochemical study of cell cycle regulatory proteins in intraductal breast carcinomas—a preliminary study. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(10):1363–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kerlikowske K et al. Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosis. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2010;102(9):627–37 (Biomarkers in DCIS).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Kulkarni S et al. COX-2 and PPARgamma expression are potential markers of recurrence risk in mammary duct carcinoma in-situ. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:36 (Biomarkers in DCIS).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Bundred NJ et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition does not improve the reduction in ductal carcinoma in situ proliferation with aromatase inhibitor therapy: results of the ERISAC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(5):1605–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Generali D et al. COX-2 expression is predictive for early relapse and aromatase inhibitor resistance in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, and is a target for treatment. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(1):46–54 (COX-2 expression in DCIS).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Gauthier ML et al. Abrogated response to cellular stress identifies DCIS associated with subsequent tumor events and defines basal-like breast tumors. Cancer Cell. 2007;12(5):479–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Barnes NL et al. Absence of HER4 expression predicts recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(6):2163–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Rakovitch E et al. A large prospectively designed study of the DCIS score: recurrence risk after local excision for ductal carcinoma in situ patients with and without irradiation. San Antonio: Presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Nafisha Lalani, Sharon Nofech-Mozes & Eileen Rakovitch

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada

    Nafisha Lalani & Eileen Rakovitch

  3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, ON, Canada

    Eileen Rakovitch

  4. Department of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Sharon Nofech-Mozes

  5. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Sharon Nofech-Mozes

Authors
  1. Nafisha Lalani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharon Nofech-Mozes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eileen Rakovitch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen Rakovitch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Rakovitch reports grants from Genomic Health. Drs. Lalani and Nofech-Mozes have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lalani, N., Nofech-Mozes, S. & Rakovitch, E. New Developments in Assessing Risk of Local Recurrence in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ after Lumpectomy and Breast Radiation. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 8, 118–126 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0211-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0211-x

Keywords