Pathological and Biological Differences Between Screen-Detected and Interval Ductal Carcinoma in situ of the Breast

Background: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has risen dramatically with the introduction of screening mammography. The aim was to evaluate differences in pathological and biological characteristics between patients with screen-detected and interval DCIS. Methods: From January 1992 to December 2001, 128 consecutive patients had been treated for pure DCIS at our institute. From these, 102 had been attending the Dutch breast cancer screening program. Sufficient paraffin-embedded tissue was available in 74 out of the 102 cases to evaluate biological marker expression (Her2/neu, ER, PR, p53 and cyclin D1) on tissue microarrays (TMA group). Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and marker expression between screen-detected and interval patients were evaluated. Screen-detected DCIS was classified as DCIS detected by screening mammography, when the two-year earlier examination failed to reveal an abnormality. Interval patients were classified as patients with DCIS detected within the two-year interval between two subsequent screening rounds. Results: Screen-detected DCIS was related with linear branching and coarse granular microcalcifications on mammography (p < .001) and with high-grade DCIS according to the Van Nuys classification (p = .025). In univariate analysis, screen-detected DCIS was related with Her2/neu overexpression (odds ratio [OR] = 6.5; 95%CI 1.3-31.0; p = .020), and interval DCIS was associated with low-grade (Van Nuys, OR = 7.3; 95% CI 1.6-33.3; p = .010) and PR positivity (OR = 0.3; 95%CI 0.1-1.0; p = .042). The multivariate analysis displayed an independent relation of Her2/neu overexpression with screen-detected DCIS (OR = 12.8; 95%CI 1.6-104.0; p = .018). Conclusions: These findings suggest that screen-detected DCIS is biologically more aggressive than interval DCIS and should not be regarded as overdiagnosis

The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time to recurrence after 15 years of follow-up of screen-detected DCIS

BACKGROUND: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) rose rapidly when the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) started in 1988. Some authorities consider that this represents both over-diagnosis and over-treatment. We report long-term follow-up of DCIS diagnosed in the first 10 years (April 1988 to March 1999) of the West Midlands NHSBSP. METHODS: 840 noninvasive breast cancers were recorded on the national breast screening computer system. Following exclusions, and thorough case note and pathology review, 700 DCIS cases were identified for follow-up. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 183 (range 133 to 259) months, 102 (14.6%) first local recurrences were identified, 49 (48%) were invasive. Median time to first noninvasive recurrence was 15 months, and 60 months for invasive recurrence. Median time to invasive recurrence was 76 months from initially high-grade DCIS, and 131 months from low/intermediate grade DCIS. For the seven women, presenting with metastasis as their first event, the median time was 82 (range 15 to 188) months. The cumulative proportion developing recurrence at 180 months was twice as high as at 60 months. INTERPRETATION: Short-term follow-up of patients diagnosed with DCIS will miss significant numbers of events, especially invasive local recurrences