4.5 Review

Feasibility of the Less Is More Approach in Treating Low-Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Diagnosed on Core Needle Biopsy Ten-Year Review of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Upgraded to Invasion at Surgery

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 142, 期 9, 页码 1120-1126

出版社

COLL AMER PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0268-OA

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context.-Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) represents 20% of screen-detected breast cancers. The likelihood that certain types of DCIS are slow growing and may never progress to invasion suggests that our current standards of treating DCIS could result in overtreatment. The LORIS (LOw RISk DCIS) and LORD (LOw Risk DCIS) trials address these concerns by randomizing patients with low-risk DCIS to either active surveillance or conventional treatment. Objective.-To determine the upgrade rate of DCIS diagnosed on core needle biopsy to invasive carcinoma at surgery and to evaluate the safety of managing low-risk DCIS with surveillance alone, by characterizing the pathologic and clinical features of upgraded cases and applying criteria of the LORD and LORIS trials to these cases. Design.-A 10-year retrospective analysis of DCIS on core needle biopsy with subsequent surgery. Results.-We identified 1271 cases of DCIS on core needle biopsy: 200 (16%) low grade, 649 (51%) intermediate grade, and 422 (33%) high grade. Of the 1271 cases, we found an 8% upgrade rate to invasive carcinoma (n = 105). Nineteen of the 105 upgraded cases (18%) had positive lymph nodes. Low-grade DCIS was least likely to upgrade to invasion, comprising 10% (10 of 105) of upgraded cases. Three of the 105 upgraded cases (3%) met criteria for the LORD trial, and all were low-grade DCIS on core needle biopsy with favorable biology on follow-up. Conclusions.-There is a clear risk of upgrade to invasion on follow-up excision; however, applying strict criteria of the LORD trial effectively decreases the likelihood of a missed invasive component or missed aggressive pathologic features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据