DCIS with Microinvasion: Is It In Situ or Invasive Disease?
BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (DCISM) can be challenging in balancing the risks of overtreatment versus undertreatment. We compared DCISM, pure DCIS, and small volume (T1a) invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) as related to histopathology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes. METHODS: Women ages 18-90 years who underwent breast surgery for DCIS, DCISM, or T1a IDC were selected from the SEER Database (2004-2015). Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of diagnosis with treatment and survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 134,569 women were identified: 3.2% DCISM, 70.9% DCIS, and 25.9% with T1a IDC. Compared with invasive disease, DCISM was less likely to be ER+ or PR+ and more likely to be HER2+. After adjustment, DCIS and invasive patients were less likely to undergo mastectomy than DCISM patients (DCIS: OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.49-0.56; invasive: OR 0.86, CI 0.81-0.92). For those undergoing lumpectomy, the likelihood of receiving radiation was similar for DCISM and invasive patients but lower for DCIS patients (OR 0.57, CI 0.52-0.63). After adjustment, breast-cancer-specific survival was significantly different between DCISM and the other two groups (DCIS: HR 0.59, CI 0.43-0.8; invasive: HR 1.43, CI 1.04-1.96). However, overall survival was not significantly different between DCISM and invasive disease, whereas patients with DCIS had improved OS (HR 0.83, CI 0.75-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Although DCISM is a distinct entity, current treatment patterns and prognosis are comparable to those with small volume IDC. These findings may help providers counsel patients and determine appropriate treatment plans.
Champion, CD; Ren, Y; Thomas, SM; Fayanju, OM; Rosenberger, LH; Greenup, RA; Menendez, CS; Hwang, ES; Plichta, JK
Volume / Issue
Start / End Page
Pubmed Central ID
Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)