Patterns of aggressiveness: risk of progression to invasive breast cancer by mammographic features of calcifications in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ

2021 ◽  
pp. 028418512110063
Author(s):  
Marie Lilleborge ◽  
Ragnhild S Falk ◽  
Tone Hovda ◽  
Marit M Holmen ◽  
Giske Ursin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Invasive Breast Cancer ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Conditional Logistic Regression ◽  
Linear Distribution ◽  
Diffuse Distribution

Background Mammographic features of calcifications on mammograms showing invasive breast cancer are associated with survival. Less is known about mammographic features and progression to invasive breast cancer among women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Purpose To investigate mammographic features of calcifications in screen-detected DCIS in women who later did and did not get diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Material and Methods This registry-based nested case-control study analyzed data from women with screen-detected DCIS in BreastScreen Norway, 1995–2016. Within this cohort of women with DCIS, those who were later diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (cases) were matched (1:2) to women who were not diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (controls) after their DCIS and by the end of 2016. Information on mammographic features were collected by a national radiological review, where screening mammograms were reviewed locally at each of the 16 breast centers in Norway. We used conditional logistic regression analysis to estimate associations between mammographic features of calcifications in the DCIS mammogram and the risk of subsequent invasive breast cancer. Results We found a higher risk of invasive breast cancer associated with fine linear branching (casting) morphology (odds ratio 20.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–158.9) compared to fine linear or fine pleomorphic morphology. Regional or diffuse distribution showed an odds ratio of 2.8 (95% CI 1.0–8.2) compared to segmental or linear distribution. Conclusion Mammographic features of calcifications in screen-detected DCIS were of influence on the risk of invasive breast cancer. Unfavorable characteristics of DCIS were fine linear branching morphology, and regional or diffuse distribution.

scholarly journals Study of Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor Expression in Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Immunohistochemical Staining in ER/PgR-Negative Invasive Breast Cancer

ISRN Oncology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei Dobrescu ◽  
Monique Chang ◽  
Vatsala Kirtani ◽  
George K. Turi ◽  
Randa Hennawy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Invasive Breast Cancer ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Receptor Expression ◽  
Invasive Cancer ◽  
Positive Staining ◽  
Receptor Status

Background. To our knowledge, the hormone receptor status of noncontiguous ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) occurring concurrently in ER/PgR-negative invasive cancer has not been studied. The current study was undertaken to investigate the ER/PgR receptor status of DCIS of the breast in patients with ER/PgR-negative invasive breast cancer. Methods. We reviewed the immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for ER and PgR of 187 consecutive cases of ER/PgR-negative invasive breast cancers, collected from 1995 to 2002. To meet the criteria for the study, we evaluated ER/PgR expression of DCIS cancer outside of the invasive breast cancer. Results. A total of 37 cases of DCIS meeting the above criteria were identified. Of these, 16 cases (43.2%) showed positive staining for ER, PgR, or both. Conclusions. In our study of ER/PgR-negative invasive breast cancer we found that in 8% of cases noncontiguous ER/PR-positive DCIS was present. In light of this finding, it may be important for pathologists to evaluate the ER/PgR status of DCIS occurring in the presence of ER/PgR-negative invasive cancer, as this subgroup could be considered for chemoprevention.

Characteristics of Microinvasive Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Versus Noninvasive and Invasive Breast Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 254 ◽  
pp. 378-383
Author(s):  
Lauren R. Strang ◽  
James Sun ◽  
Weihong Sun ◽  
David Boulware ◽  
John V. Kiluk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Invasive Breast Cancer ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma

scholarly journals Readmissions and complications in breast ductal carcinoma in situ: A retrospective study comparing screen- and non-screen-detected patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 174550652096589
Author(s):  
Julieta Politi ◽  
María Sala ◽  
Laia Domingo ◽  
María Vernet-Tomas ◽  
Marta Román ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Mammographic Screening

Objective: Population-wide mammographic screening programs aim to reduce breast cancer mortality. However, a broad view of the harms and benefits of these programs is necessary to favor informed decisions, especially in the earliest stages of the disease. Here, we compare the outcomes of patients diagnosed with breast ductal carcinoma in situ in participants and non-participants of a population-based mammographic screening program. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with breast ductal carcinoma in situ between 2000 and 2010 within a single hospital. A total of 211 patients were included, and the median follow-up was 8.4 years. The effect of detection mode (screen-detected and non-screen-detected) on breast cancer recurrences, readmissions, and complications was evaluated through multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: In the majority of women, breast ductal carcinoma in situ was screen-detected (63.5%). Screen-detected breast ductal carcinoma in situ was smaller in size compared to those non-screen-detected (57.53% < 20 mm versus 78.03%, p = 0.002). Overall, breast-conserving surgery was the most frequent surgery (86.26%); however, mastectomy was higher in non-screen-detected breast ductal carcinoma in situ (20.78% versus 9.7%, p = 0.024). Readmissions for mastectomy were more frequent in non-screen-detected breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Psychological complications, such as fatigue, anxiety, and depression, had a prevalence of 15% within our cohort. Risk of readmissions and complications was higher within the non-screen-detected group, as evidenced by an odds ratio = 6.25 (95% confidence interval = 1.95–19.99) for readmissions and an odds ratio = 2.41 (95% confidence interval = 1.95–4.86) for complications. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that women with breast ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer diagnosed through population-based breast cancer screening program experience a lower risk of readmissions and complications than those diagnosed outside these programs. These findings can help aid women and health professionals make informed decisions regarding screening.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document