Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Computational Risk Analysis

被引:53
|
作者
Ryser, Marc D. [1 ,3 ]
Worni, Mathias [3 ,5 ,6 ]
Turner, Elizabeth L. [2 ,7 ]
Marks, Jeffrey R. [4 ]
Durrett, Rick [1 ]
Hwang, E. Shelley [3 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Dept Math, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Duke Global Hlth Inst, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[3] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Div Adv Oncol & GI Surg, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[4] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Div Surg Sci, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[5] Univ Hosp Bern, Inselspital, Dept Visceral Surg & Med, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
[6] Univ Bern, Bern, Switzerland
[7] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Biostat & Bioinformat, Durham, NC 27710 USA
来源
基金
瑞士国家科学基金会; 美国国家卫生研究院; 美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
BREAST-CANCER; OVERDIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; WOMEN; DCIS; TAMOXIFEN; FEATURES;
D O I
10.1093/jnci/djv372
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a noninvasive breast lesion with uncertain risk for invasive progression. Usual care (UC) for DCIS consists of treatment upon diagnosis, thus potentially overtreating patients with low propensity for progression. One strategy to reduce overtreatment is active surveillance (AS), whereby DCIS is treated only upon detection of invasive disease. Our goal was to perform a quantitative evaluation of outcomes following an AS strategy for DCIS. Methods: Age-stratified, 10-year disease-specific cumulative mortality (DSCM) for AS was calculated using a computational risk projection model based upon published estimates for natural history parameters, and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data for outcomes. AS projections were compared with the DSCM for patients who received UC. To quantify the propagation of parameter uncertainty, a 95% projection range (PR) was computed, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Under the assumption that AS cannot outperform UC, the projected median differences in 10-year DSCM between AS and UC when diagnosed at ages 40, 55, and 70 years were 2.6% (PR = 1.4%-5.1%), 1.5% (PR = 0.5%-3.5%), and 0.6% (PR = 0.0%-2.4), respectively. Corresponding median numbers of patients needed to treat to avert one breast cancer death were 38.3 (PR = 19.7-69.9), 67.3 (PR = 28.7-211.4), and 157.2 (PR = 41.1-3872.8), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that the parameter with greatest impact on DSCM was the probability of understaging invasive cancer at diagnosis. Conclusion: AS could be a viable management strategy for carefully selected DCIS patients, particularly among older age groups and those with substantial competing mortality risks. The effectiveness of AS could be markedly improved by reducing the rate of understaging.
引用
下载
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Risk Reduction Strategies for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
    Cohen, Adam L.
    Ward, John H.
    JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2010, 8 (10): : 1211 - 1217
  • [32] Clinical Outcomes of Conservative Treatment for Low-Risk Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
    Co, M.
    Cheng, K. C. K.
    Yeung, Y. H.
    Lau, K. C.
    Qian, Z.
    Wong, C. M.
    Wong, B. Y.
    Sin, E. L. K.
    Wong, H. Y. S.
    Ma, C. H.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 35 (04) : 255 - 261
  • [33] Computational Image Analysis of Nuclear Morphology Distinguishes Ductal Carcinoma In Situ from Usual Ductal Hyperplasia of the Breast
    Dong, F.
    Lerwill, M. F.
    Brachtel, E. F.
    Knoblauch, N. W.
    Montaser-Kouhsari, L.
    Jones, N. C.
    Wilbur, D. C.
    Beck, A. H.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2014, 27 : 45A - 46A
  • [34] Computational Image Analysis of Nuclear Morphology Distinguishes Ductal Carcinoma In Situ from Usual Ductal Hyperplasia of the Breast
    Dong, F.
    Lerwill, M. F.
    Brachtel, E. F.
    Knoblauch, N. W.
    Montaser-Kouhsari, L.
    Jones, N. C.
    Wilbur, D. C.
    Beck, A. H.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2014, 94 : 45A - 46A
  • [35] Trends in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ
    Worni, Mathias
    Akushevich, Igor
    Greenup, Rachel
    Sarma, Deba
    Ryser, Marc D.
    Myers, Evan R.
    Hwang, E. Shelley
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2015, 107 (12):
  • [36] Outcomes in Patients Treated With Mastectomy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
    Owen, Dawn
    Tyldesley, Scott
    Alexander, Cheryl
    Speers, Caroline
    Truong, Pauline
    Nichol, Alan
    Wai, Elaine S.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2013, 85 (03): : E129 - E134
  • [37] Do sentinel node micrometastases predict recurrence risk in ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion?
    Murphy, Colleen D.
    Jones, Julie L.
    Javid, Sara Hughes
    Michaelson, James S.
    Nolan, Matthew E.
    Lipsitz, Stuart R.
    Specht, Michelle C.
    Lesnikoski, Beth-Ann
    Hughes, Kevin S.
    Gadd, Michele A.
    Smith, Barbara L.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2008, 196 (04): : 566 - 568
  • [38] Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Has Comparable Prognosis but Different Risk Factors With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ With Micro Invasion
    Liu, W.
    Wang, S.
    Tang, Y.
    Jin, J.
    Song, Y. W.
    Wang, W.
    Liu, Y.
    Fang, H.
    Ren, H.
    Liu, X.
    Yu, Z.
    Li, Y. X.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 99 (02): : E32 - E33
  • [39] Genomic Analysis of Multifocal Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Synchronous Invasive Ductal Carcinoma
    Pareja, Fresia
    Brown, David
    Lee, Ju Youn
    Geyer, Felipe
    Paula, Arnaud Da Cruz
    Lorenzo, Ferrando
    Selenica, Pier
    Wen, Hannah
    Hicks, James
    Weigelt, Britta
    Reis-Filho, Jorge
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2020, 33 (SUPPL 2) : 230 - 230
  • [40] Genomic Analysis of Multifocal Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Synchronous Invasive Ductal Carcinoma
    Pareja, Fresia
    Brown, David
    Lee, Ju Youn
    Geyer, Felipe
    Paula, Arnaud Da Cruz
    Lorenzo, Ferrando
    Selenica, Pier
    Wen, Hannah
    Hicks, James
    Weigelt, Britta
    Reis-Filho, Jorge
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2020, 100 (SUPPL 1) : 230 - 230