Comparison of Local Recurrence Risk Estimates After Breast-Conserving Surgery for DCIS: DCIS Nomogram Versus Refined Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score

被引:20
|
作者
Van Zee, Kimberly J. [1 ]
Zabor, Emily C. [2 ]
Di Donato, Rosemarie [3 ]
Harmon, Bryan [3 ]
Fox, Jana [4 ]
Morrow, Monica [1 ]
Cody, Hiram S. [1 ]
Fineberg, Susan A. [3 ]
机构
[1] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Surg, Breast Serv, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Biostat Serv, New York, NY 10021 USA
[3] Montefiore Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, Bronx, NY 10467 USA
[4] Montefiore Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, 111 E 210th St, Bronx, NY 10467 USA
关键词
CARCINOMA IN-SITU; TUMOR RECURRENCES; WOMEN; RADIOTHERAPY; VALIDATION; CANCER; TAMOXIFEN; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1245/s10434-019-07537-y
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background A ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) Nomogram integrating 10 clinicopathologic/treatment factors and a Refined DCIS Score (RDS) that incorporates a genomic assay and three clinicopathologic factors (Oncotype DX DCIS Score) are available to estimate DCIS 10-year local recurrence risk (LRR). This study compared these estimates. Methods Patients 50 years of age or older with DCIS size 2.5 cm or smaller and a genomic assay available were identified. An RDS within 1-2% of the range of Nomogram LRR estimates obtained by assuming use and non-use of endocrine therapy (Nomogram +/- ET) was defined as concordant. Assuming a 10-year risk threshold of 10% for recommending radiation, Nomogram +/- ET and RDS estimates were compared, and threshold concordance was determined. Results For 54 (92%) of 59 patients, the RDS and Nomogram +/- ET LRR estimates were concordant. For the remaining 5 (8%) of the 59 patients, the RDS LRR estimates were lower than the Nomogram + ET estimates, with an absolute difference of 3-8%, and thus were discordant. For these five patients, the RDS estimates of 10-year LRR were lower than 10% (range 5-8%) and the Nomogram + ET estimates were 10% or higher (range 11-14%). These five patients with both discordant and threshold-discordant estimates all had close margins (<= 2 mm). Conclusions Among 92% of women 50 years of age or older with DCIS size 2.5 cm or smaller, free-of-charge online Nomogram 10-year LRR estimates were concordant with those obtained using the commercially available RDS (> $4600). Among the 8% with discordant risk estimates, the RDS appeared to underestimate the LRR and may lead to inappropriate omission of radiotherapy. Unless other data show a clinically significant advantage of the RDS (Oncotype DX DCIS Score), the study data suggest that for women 50 years of age or older with DCIS size 2.5 cm or smaller, its use is not warranted.
引用
收藏
页码:3282 / 3288
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Local Recurrence Risk Estimates After Breast-Conserving Surgery for DCIS: DCIS Nomogram Versus Refined Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score
    Kimberly J. Van Zee
    Emily C. Zabor
    Rosemarie Di Donato
    Bryan Harmon
    Jana Fox
    Monica Morrow
    Hiram S. Cody
    Susan A. Fineberg
    [J]. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2019, 26 : 3282 - 3288
  • [2] A Comparison of local recurrence risk estimates after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS: DCIS nomogram vs refined Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score™
    Van Zee, Kimberly
    Zabor, Emily
    Di Donato, Rosemarie
    Harmon, Bryan
    Fox, Jana
    Morrow, Monica
    Cody, Hiram
    Fineberg, Susan
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 26 : 212 - 213
  • [3] Comparison of DCIS Recurrence Risk Prediction Models: MSK Breast Cancer Nomogram and the Oncotype DX DCIS Score
    Fineberg, Susan
    DiDonato, Rosemarie
    Fox, Jana
    Lo, Yungtai
    Makower, Della
    [J]. MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2018, 31 : 60 - 60
  • [4] Comparison of DCIS Recurrence Risk Prediction Models: MSK Breast Cancer Nomogram and the Oncotype DX DCIS Score
    Fineberg, Susan
    DiDonato, Rosemarie
    Fox, Jana
    Lo, Yungtai
    Makower, Della
    [J]. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2018, 98 : 60 - 60
  • [5] A nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery for DCIS
    Rudloff, U.
    Jacks, L. M.
    Goldberg, J. I.
    Wynveen, C. A.
    Brogi, E.
    Patil, S.
    Van Zee, K. J.
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 17 : S22 - S22
  • [6] Predicting risk after breast-conserving surgery alone for DCIS patients
    Rakovitch, E.
    Nofech-Mozes, S.
    Hanna, W.
    Baehner, F. L.
    Saskin, R.
    Paszat, L.
    [J]. BREAST, 2015, 24 : S113 - S113
  • [7] Comparison of predictive models for local recurrence of DCIS after breast conserving surgery.
    Young, Rebekah L.
    Desai, Shiv
    Kalnicki, Shalom
    Fox, Jana Lauren
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 33 (28)
  • [8] A comparison of models (physician, the Van Nuys prognostic index, the Memorial-Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center DCIS nomogram) to predict ipsilateral breast events in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast after breast-conserving surgery failed to replicate results of the oncotype DCIS recurrence score
    Leonard, C.
    Lei, R.
    Antell, A.
    Nowels, M.
    Fryman, S.
    Howell, K.
    Dennis, C.
    [J]. CANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 77
  • [9] Breast-Conserving Therapy for DCIS: Local Recurrence Following Boost Radiotherapy
    Max, D.
    Flynn, J.
    Zhang, Z.
    Mueller, B. A.
    Gillespie, E. F.
    Khan, A. J.
    Cahlon, O.
    Powell, S. N.
    McCormick, B.
    Braunstein, L. Z.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 105 (01): : E14 - E14
  • [10] Impact of consensus guidelines for breast-conserving surgery in DCIS
    Tremelling, Abigail
    Aft, Rebecca
    Gillanders, William
    Glover-Collins, Katherine
    Herrmann, Virginia
    Margenthaler, Julie
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 26 : 104 - 104