Journals / European Journal of Breast Health / 2022 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3

The Senologic International Society Survey on Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Present and Future

Pages
205–221
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The International Senologic Society, by its members, encourages precision medicine and personalized treatments for DCIS, to avoid overtreatment and overdiagnosis, and provide better healthcare to women with DCIS.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Therapeutic management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is heterogeneous among countries worldwide, and some treatment indications are still controversial.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The Senologic International Society network members participated to an online survey using a questionnaire, between November 2021 and February 2022.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The International Senologic Society, by its members, encourages precision medicine and personalized treatments for DCIS, to avoid overtreatment and overdiagnosis, and provide better healthcare to women with DCIS.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Therapeutic management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is heterogeneous among countries worldwide, and some treatment indications are still controversial. To investigate DCIS management in different countries; identify both consensual practices and controversial topics; and survey opinions about the future management of DCIS. Materials and Methods: The Senologic International Society network members participated to an online survey using a questionnaire, between November 2021 and February 2022. Results: Twenty-two responses from 20 different countries showed that organized breast cancer screening programs were present for 87% participants, and DCIS cases represented 13.7% of all breast cancers. Most participants used the grade classification (100%), the morphological classification (78%) and performed immunohistochemistry assays (73%). In case of conservative treatment, the mean re-excision rate was 10.3% and clear margins of mean 2.5 mm were considered healthy. Radical mastectomy rate was 35.5% with a breast reconstruction rate of 53%. Tumor bed boost indications were heterogeneous, and 73% of participants indicated hormone therapy for hormone-positive DCIS. Surgery and radiotherapy omission for some low-risk DCIS were considered by 73% of participants. Multigene assays were used by 43% of participants. Concerning future changes in DCIS management, participants mostly answered surgical de-escalation (48%), radiotherapy de-escalation (35) and/or active surveillance for some cases (22%). Conclusion: This survey provided an overview of the current practices of DCIS management worldwide. It showed that some areas are rather consensual: incidence increases over time, treatment in young women, pathological classifications, definition of healthy margins, the skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. However, some topics are still debated and result in heterogeneous practices, such as evolution in the age of diagnosis, the benefit of de-escalation in low-risk DCIS among elderly women, indications for hormone therapy, radiotherapy omission, or multigene assays. Further evidence is needed to reach consensus on these points, and innovative approaches are still under evaluation in clinical trials. The International Senologic Society, by its members, encourages precision medicine and personalized treatments for DCIS, to avoid overtreatment and overdiagnosis, and provide better healthcare to women with DCIS.

🔖

Cite This Article

SCHNEEBAUM, S., ELDER, E., COSTA, M. M., PIENKOWSKI, T., AVISAR, E., ELONGE, T., IMOTO, S., SELİM, A., LODI, M., ALGHAMDI, K., ARBOLEDA-OSORIO, B., BOUBNIDER, M., GEBRIM, L., HAO, X., ÖZMEN, T., SARRIA, G., SEMIGLAZOV, V., MUNDI, A. (2022). The Senologic International Society Survey on Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Present and Future. European Journal of Breast Health, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3, 205–221. https://ajindex.com/articles/510667

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Punglia RS, Bifolck K, Golshan M, Lehman C, Collins L, Polyak K, et al. Epidemiology, biology, treatment, and prevention of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). JNCI Cancer Spectr 2018
  2. pky063. (PMID: 30627695) [Crossref] 2. Cserni G, Chmielik E, Cserni B, Tot T. The new TNM-based staging of breast cancer. Virchows Arch 2018
  3. (PMID: 29380126) [Crossref] 3. Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010
  4. (PMID: 20071685) [Crossref] 4. Sørum R, Hofvind S, Skaane P, Haldorsen T. Trends in incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ: the effect of a population-based screening programme. Breast 2010
  5. (PMID: 21071225) [Crossref] 5. Puig-Vives M, Pollan M, Rue M, Osca-Gelis G, Saez M, Izquierdo A, et al. Rapid increase in incidence of breast ductal carcinoma in situ in Girona, Spain 1983-2007. Breast 2012
  6. (PMID: 22340960) [Crossref] 6. Molinié F, Vanier A, Woronoff AS, Guizard AV, Delafosse P, Velten M, et al. Trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality in France 1990- 2008. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014
  7. (PMID: 25106658) [Crossref] 7. Ryser MD, Weaver DL, Zhao F, Worni M, Grimm LJ, Gulati R, et al. Cancer Outcomes in DCIS Patients Without Locoregional Treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019
  8. (PMID: 30759222) [Crossref] 8. Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Simpson JF, Page DL, Dupont WD. Continued observation of the natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ reaffirms proclivity for local recurrence even after more than 30 years of follow-up. Mod Pathol 2015
  9. (PMID: 25502729) [Crossref] 9. International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors: Breast tumors. 5th Ed. 2019. [Crossref] 10. International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors: Breast tumors. 4th Ed. 2012. [Crossref] 11. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breastconserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002
  10. (PMID: 12393819) [Crossref] 12. Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Margins in breast cancer: How much is enough? Cancer 2018
  11. (PMID: 29338088) [Crossref] 13. Tadros AB, Smith BD, Shen Y, Lin H, Krishnamurthy S, Lucci A, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ and