Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Breast cancer early detection of cancer ductal carcinoma in situ mammography calcification risk assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wiechmann

Kuerer

HM.

The molecular journey from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive breast cancer. Cancer 2008; 112:2130–2142.

Arpino

Laucirica

Elledge

RM.

Premalignant and in situ breast disease: biology and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143:446–457.

Alexander

Beyda

Nayak

, et al. Not All Ductal Carcinomas In Situ Are Created IDLE (Indolent Lesions of Epithelial Origin). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2019; 143:99–104.

Hong

McMasters

Egger

, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ current trends, controversies, and review of literature. Am J Surg 2018; 216:998–1003.

Lynge

Ponti

James

, et al. Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: A survey within the International Cancer Screening Network. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50:185–192.

Sørum R, Hofvind S, Skaane P, et al. Trends in incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ: the effect of a population-based screening programme. Breast 2010;19:499–505.

Lilleborge M, Falk RS, Russnes H, Sauer T, Ursin G, Hofvind S. Risk of breast cancer by prior screening results among women participating in Breast Screen Norway. Cancer 2019;125:3330–3337.

Habel

Moe

Daling

, et al . Risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Surg 1997; 225:69–75.

Virnig

Shamliyan

Tuttle

, et al. Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, 185. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009.

10.

Falk RS, Hofvind S, Skaane P, et al. Second events following ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a register-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;129:929–938.

11.

Malone

Saltzman

, et al. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988-2001. Cancer 2006; 106:2104–2112.

12.

Sprague

Vacek

Herschorn

, et al. Time-varying risks of second events following a DCIS diagnosis in the population-based Vermont DCIS cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 174:227–235.

13.

O’Grady

Morgan

(2018) Microcalcifications in breast cancer: From pathophysiology to diagnosis and prognosis. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 2018; 1869:310–320.

14.

Linda

Metaxa L

Healy

, and O’Keeffe

SA.

Breast microcalcifications: the UK RCR 5-point breast imaging system or BI-RADS; which is the better predictor of malignancy?

Br J Radiol 2019; 92:1103.

15.

Grimm

Miller

Thomas

, et al. Growth dynamics of mammographic calcifications: differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ from benign breast disease. Radiology 2019; 292:77–83.

16.

Kurniawan

Rose

Mou

, et al. Risk factors for invasive breast cancer when core needle biopsy shows ductal carcinoma in situ. Arch Surg 2010; 145:1098–1104.

17.

Wang

Lin

Lai

, et al. Imaging features that distinguish pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from DCIS with microinvasion. Mol Clin Oncol 2019; 11:313–319.

18.

Selvakumaran

Hou

Baker

, et al. Predicting upstaging of DCIS to invasive disease: radiologists’ predictive performance. Acad Radiol 2020; 27:1580–1585.

19.

Shi

Grimm

Mazurowski

, et al. Prediction of occult invasive disease in ductal carcinoma in situ using deep learning features. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15:527–534.

20.

Song

, et al. Predicting underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ: a comparison between radiomics and conventional approaches. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2019; 14:709–721.

21.

Hofvind S, Iversen B.F, Eriksen L, et al. Mammographic morphology and distribution of calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in organized screening. Acta Radiol 2011;52:481–487.

22.

Rauch

Hobbs

Kuerer

, et al. Microcalcifications in 1657 patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation with clinical, histopathologic, biologic features, and local recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:482–489.

23.

Maxwell

Clements

Hilton

, et al. Risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018; 44:429–435.

24.

Luiten

Voogd

Luiten

EJT

, et al. Recall and outcome of screen-detected microcalcifications during 2 decades of mammography screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program. Radiology 2020; 294:528–537.

25.

Evans

Clements

Maxwell

AJ.

Lesion size is a major determinant of the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the Sloane project. Clin Radiol 2010; 65:181–184.

26.

Bae

Moon

Chang

, et al. Mammographic features of calcifications in DCIS: correlation with oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Eur Radiol 2013; 23:2072–2078.

27.

Kim

Choi

, et al. Screening mammography-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features based on breast cancer subtypes. Clin Imaging 2015; 39:983–986.

28.

Tabár

Chen

Duffy

, et al. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study [published correction appears in Lancet Apr 15;355(9212):1372]. Lancet 2000; 355:429–433.

29.

Tabar

Tony Chen

Amy Yen

, et al. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 101:1745–1759.

30.

Pálka

Ormándi

Gaál

, et al. Casting-type calcifications on the mammogram suggest a higher probability of early relapse and death among high-risk breast cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2007; 46:1178–1183.

31.

Rominger

Steinmetz

Westerman

, et al. Microcalcification-associated breast cancer: presentation, successful first excision, long-term recurrence and survival rate. Breast Care (Basel) 2015; 10:380–385.

32.

Woodard

Elissa

Price

ER.

Qualitative radiogenomics: association between BI-RADS calcification descriptors and recurrence risk as assessed by the oncotype DX ductal carcinoma in situ score. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212:919–924.

33.

Hofvind S, Tsuruda K, Mangerud G, et al. The Norwegian breast cancer screening program, 1996-2016: celebrating 20 years of organised mammographic screening. In: Cancer in Norway 2016 – Cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. https://www.kreftregisteret.no/globalassets/cancer-in-norway/2016/mammo_cin2016_special_issue_web.pdf (accessed 3 February 2020).

34.

Sickles

D’Orsi

Bassett

, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013.

35.

Zhou

Sollie

Tot

, et al. Ductal breast carcinoma in situ: mammographic features and its relation to prognosis and tumour biology in a population based cohort. Int J Breast Cancer 2017:4351319.

36.

Claus

Stowe

Carter

, et al. The risk of a contralateral breast cancer among women diagnosed with ductal and lobular breast carcinoma in situ: data from the Connecticut Tumor Registry. Breast 2003; 12:451–456.

37.

ISRCTN Registry. Surgery versus Active Monitoring for LOw RISk Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS). Available at: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN27544579 (accessed 3 January 2020).

38.

ClinicalTrials.gov. Management of Low-risk DCIS (LORD). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02492607 (accessed 3 January 2020).

39.

ClinicalTrials.gov. Comparison of Operative to Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy (COMET) Trial For Low Risk DCIS. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02926911 (accessed 3 January 2020).

40.

UMIN-CTR Clinical Trial. Single-arm confirmatory trial of endocrine therapy alone for estrogen receptor-positive, low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (JCOG1505, LORETTA trial). Available at: https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000032260&language=E (accessed 3 January 2020).

41.

Pilewskie

Stempel

Rosenfeld

, et al. Do LORIS trial eligibility criteria identify a ductal carcinoma in situ patient population at low risk of upgrade to invasive carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:3487–3493.

42.

Pilewskie

Olcese

Patil

, et al. Women with low-risk DCIS eligible for the LORIS trial after complete surgical excision: how low is their risk after standard therapy? Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:4253–4261.

43.

Koh

VCY

Lim

JCT

Thike

, et al. Behaviour and characteristics of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: literature review and single-centre retrospective series. Histopathology 2019; 74:970–987.

44.

Fan

Pardo

Alapati

, et al. Analysis of active surveillance as a treatment modality in ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 2020; 26:1221–1226.

45.

Lovdata

Norway.

[Regulation on the collection and processing of data about health in the Cancer Registry of Norway]. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. Available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2001-12-21-1477 (accessed 3 February 2020).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.59 MB

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