Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of the Twelve-Gene Recurrence Score for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ and Its Influence on Receipt of Adjuvant Radiation and Hormonal Therapy

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Tumor genomic prognostic assays estimate 10-year local recurrence risk in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and can guide treatment decisions. This study aimed to evaluate which DCIS patients treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) underwent DCIS score genomic testing and the influence of the results on adjuvant treatment recommendations.

Methods

The study identified patients from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) who had DCIS treated with BCS from 2010 to 2016.

Results

Of 141,047 patients, 4255 (3%) had a DCIS score assessed, 0.3% in 2010 increasing to 5.8% in 2016 (p < 0.001). The patients most likely to undergo DCIS score assessment had more favorable tumor features in the multivariable analysis. The DCIS score result was documented for 91.4% of the tested patients (n = 3888): 70.5% of the low-risk, 14.9% of the intermediate-risk, and 14.6% of the high-risk patients. The patients with low-risk scores were less likely to have radiation than those with intermediate- or high-risk scores among the patients with either ER + (35.0% vs 71.0% or 81.1%) or ER– disease (48.1% vs 77.0% or 85.5%) (each p ≤ 0.001). The patients who had ER + disease with high- and intermediate-risk scores were most commonly treated with both radiation and hormone therapy (HT) (57.1% and 52.2%), whereas the most common treatment for those with a low-risk DCIS score was HT alone without radiation (37.1%). Comparison of genomic testing with clinicopathologic features showed an independent influence of genomic testing on treatment.

Conclusions

Use of the DCIS score increased over time, predominantly for favorable DCIS. Patients with a low-risk score were significantly less likely to receive radiation, supporting an impact of the DCIS score on treatment de-escalation.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kerlikowske K. Epidemiology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010; 2010:139–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chabner E, Schnitt S, Harris J. Current management of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Oncologist. 1997;2:76–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S, et al. Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:739–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853: a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3381–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Manders JB, Kuerer HM, Smith BD, et al. Clinical utility of the 12-gene DCIS score assay: impact on radiotherapy recommendations for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24.660–8.

  7. Correa C, McGale P, Taylor C, et al. Overview of the randomized trials of radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010:162–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McCormick B, Winter K, Hudis C, et al. RTOG 9804: a prospective randomized trial for good-risk ductal carcinoma in situ comparing radiotherapy with observation. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:709–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE, 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;12:21–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McCormick B. Randomized trial evaluating radiation following surgical excision for “good risk” DCIS: 12-year report from NRG/RTOG 9804. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physics. 2018;102:1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL, et al. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:701–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rudloff U, Jacks LM, Goldberg JI, et al. Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3762–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bremer T, Whitworth PW, Patel R, et al. A biological signature for breast ductal carcinoma in situ to predict radiotherapy benefit and assess recurrence risk. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:5895–901.

  14. Solin LJ, Gray R, Hughes LL, 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;33:3938–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rakovitch E, Nofech-Mozes S, Hanna W, 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;152:389–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, et al. The COMET (Comparison of Operative Versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wesseling J. et al. Abstract OT3-07-01: Update of the Randomized, Non-inferiority LORD Trial Testing Safety of Active Surveillance for Women with Screen-Detected Low Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (EORTC-1401-BCG/BOOG 2014-04, DCIS). 2018: OT3-07. < PUB1>

  18. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L, et al. Addressing overtreatment of screen-detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51::2296–303.

  19. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Bellon JR, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2382–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin CY, Mooney K, Choy W, et al. Will oncotype DX DCIS-testing guide therapy? A single-institution correlation of oncotype DX DCIS results with histopathologic findings and clinical management decisions. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:562–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Giuliano AE, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Eighth edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:1783–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Peethambaram PP, Hoskin TL, Day CN, Goetz MP, Habermann EB, Boughey JC. Use of 21-gene recurrence score assay to individualize adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations in ER +/HER2 − node-positive breast cancer: a national cancer database study. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-017-0044-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Jagsi R, Abrahamse P, Hawley ST, Graff JJ, Hamilton AS, Katz SJ. Under-ascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry data. Cancer. 2012;118:333–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Mara A. Piltin DO, John Davis MD & Judy C. Boughey MD

  2. Department of Health Science Research and Clinical Statistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Tanya L. Hoskin MS, Courtney N. Day BS & Elizabeth B. Habermann PhD

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Dean A. Shumway MD

Authors
  1. Mara A. Piltin DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tanya L. Hoskin MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Courtney N. Day BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dean A. Shumway MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth B. Habermann PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Davis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Judy C. Boughey MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy C. Boughey MD.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Piltin, M.A., Hoskin, T.L., Day, C.N. et al. Use of the Twelve-Gene Recurrence Score for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ and Its Influence on Receipt of Adjuvant Radiation and Hormonal Therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 4294–4303 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09517-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09517-z

Search

Navigation