Underestimation Of Invasive Cancer Research Articles

Factors Associated With Underestimation of Invasive Cancer in Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

ImportanceRecent recognition of the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by mammography has led to the development of clinical trials randomizing women with non–high-grade DCIS to active surveillance, defined as imaging surveillance with or without endocrine therapy, vs standard surgical care.ObjectiveTo determine the factors associated with underestimation of invasive cancer in patients with a clinical diagnosis of non–high-grade DCIS that would preclude active surveillance.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using records from the National Cancer Database from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2012, of female patients 40 to 99 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of non–high-grade DCIS who underwent definitive surgical treatment. Data analysis was conducted from November 1, 2015, to February 4, 2017.ExposuresPatients with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma vs those with a diagnosis of DCIS based on final surgical pathologic findings.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe proportions of cases with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma from final surgical pathologic findings were compared by tumor, host, and system characteristics.ResultsOf 37 544 women (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [12.4] years) presenting with a clinical diagnosis of non–high-grade DCIS, 8320 (22.2%) had invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings. Invasive carcinomas were more likely to be smaller (>0.5 to ≤1.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79; >1.0 to ≤2.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.39-0.46; >2.0 to ≤5.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.17-0.22; and >5.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.08-0.15) and lower grade (intermediate vs low: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that younger age (60-79 vs 40-49 years: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92; and ≥80 vs 40 to 49 years: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91), negative estrogen receptor status (positive vs negative: OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.34-0.43), treatment at an academic facility (academic vs community: OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.82-2.38), and higher annual income (>$63 000 vs <$38 000: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28) were significantly associated with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings.Conclusions and RelevanceWhen selecting patients for active surveillance of DCIS, factors other than tumor biology associated with invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings may need to be considered. At the time of randomization to active surveillance, a significant proportion of patients with non–high-grade DCIS will harbor invasive carcinoma.

Rates of presurgical underestimation of breast cancer after standardized assessment of breast calcifications

Purpose: To determine the frequency of histopathological underestimation of breast cancer after vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) in standardized assessment of breast calcifications compared to postsurgical diagnosis. Materials and methods: The retrospective study included acquired data of 506 consecutively examined women, who underwent VAB for the assessment of pure calcifications after standardized digital mammographic and sonographic imaging. 119/506 (24.5 %) women underwent further surgical procedures: 37 women had a surgical diagnostic excision biopsy, 82 women a surgical procedure based on a therapeutic concept. Presurgical results of VAB were compared with the postsurgical histopathological reports. Results: In 91/119 women (76.5 %) the final histology was malignant. The rate of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 79.1 % (72/91) and the rate of invasive carcinoma was 20.9 % (19/91). In 9/37 women with diagnostic excision biopsy, the presurgical status of benign or uncertain changed to a postsurgical diagnosis of malignant (24.3 %). In eight cases underestimation included DCIS (21.6 %) and in one case invasive cancer (2.7 %). Seven of the nine underestimated cases (77.8 %) resulted from excision biopsy of atypical epithelial proliferation of ductal type (AEPDT, positive predictive value 30.4 % (7/23)). After surgery due to DCIS in 7/71 women invasive breast cancer was diagnosed (9.9 %). In 11/82 women with oncological surgery, invasive cancer was already diagnosed by VAB. Conclusion: Underestimation of invasive cancer in terms of presurgical DCIS diagnosis can be minimized by the standardized assessment protocol to about 10 %. Underestimation of DCIS is mainly related to presurgical diagnosis of AEPDT. Key points:

Rates of presurgical underestimation of breast cancer after standardized assessment of breast calcifications.

To determine the frequency of histopathological underestimation of breast cancer after vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) in standardized assessment of breast calcifications compared to postsurgical diagnosis. The retrospective study included acquired data of 506 consecutively examined women, who underwent VAB for the assessment of pure calcifications after standardized digital mammographic and sonographic imaging. 119/506 (24.5 %) women underwent further surgical procedures: 37 women had a surgical diagnostic excision biopsy, 82 women a surgical procedure based on a therapeutic concept. Presurgical results of VAB were compared with the postsurgical histopathological reports. In 91/119 women (76.5 %) the final histology was malignant. The rate of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 79.1 % (72/91) and the rate of invasive carcinoma was 20.9 % (19/91). In 9/37 women with diagnostic excision biopsy, the presurgical status of benign or uncertain changed to a postsurgical diagnosis of malignant (24.3 %). In eight cases underestimation included DCIS (21.6 %) and in one case invasive cancer (2.7 %). Seven of the nine underestimated cases (77.8 %) resulted from excision biopsy of atypical epithelial proliferation of ductal type (AEPDT, positive predictive value 30.4 % (7/23)). After surgery due to DCIS in 7/71 women invasive breast cancer was diagnosed (9.9 %). In 11/82 women with oncological surgery, invasive cancer was already diagnosed by VAB. Underestimation of invasive cancer in terms of presurgical DCIS diagnosis can be minimized by the standardized assessment protocol to about 10 %. Underestimation of DCIS is mainly related to presurgical diagnosis of AEPDT. • The standardized use of digital mammographic and sonographic imaging prior to vacuum-assisted biopsy is suitable for minimizing underestimation of invasive breast cancer. AEPDT represents a high risk diagnosis for underestimation of DCIS.

Predictors of Residual Invasive Disease after Core Needle Biopsy Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Core needle biopsy (CNB) is used to sample both mammographically and ultrasound detected breast lesions. A diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by CNB does not ensure the absence of invasive cancer upon surgical excision and as a result an upstaged patient may need to undergo additional surgery for axillary nodal evaluation. This study evaluates the accuracy of CNB in excluding invasive disease and the preoperative features that predict upstaging of DCIS to invasive breast cancer. Two hundred fifty-four patients over an 8-year period from 1994 to 2002 with a diagnosis of DCIS alone by CNB were retrospectively reviewed. Underestimation of invasive cancer by CNB was determined. Radiographic, pathologic, and surgical features of the cohort were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis. The mean age was 55 years (range 27-84) and mean follow-up was 25 months with one patient unavailable for follow-up. There were a total of six patient deaths, all of which were not disease-specific. A total of 21 out of 254 patients (8%) with DCIS by CNB were upstaged to invasive cancer following surgical excision. There was a significant inverse relationship between the number of core biopsies and the incidence of upstaging (p < 0.006) in that patients with fewer core samples were more likely to be upstaged at surgical pathology. No relationship was noted between the size of the core samples and the likelihood of upstaging (p > 0.4). Of 21 patients with invasion, all but two had comedonecrosis by CNB. Comedonecrosis by CNB significantly increased the likelihood of upstaging (p < 0.001). Of the 21 patients who were upstaged, 12 required subsequent surgery for nodal evaluation while nine had sentinel node biopsy at initial operation. Finally, upstaged patients were significantly more likely to have a positive margin (p < 0.008). Ductal carcinoma in situ with comedonecrosis on CNB can help to predict the possibility of invasion. Increasing the number of core biopsies reduced the likelihood of sampling error.