College of American pathologists protocol for the reporting of ductal carcinoma in situ

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 133, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 13-14

  Lester, Susan C ^a   Connolly, James L ^b   Amin, Mahul B ^c  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Cedars Sinai Medical Center

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INVASION; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PROGNOSIS; TISSUE SECTION; UNITED STATES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 58349112572     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. O'Sullivan MJ, Morrow M. Ductal carcinoma in situ-current management. Surg Clin North Am. 2007;87:333-351, viii.
2. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the Reporting of Breast Carcinoma. Updated September 2004, Version 1.1. Available at: http://www.adasp.org/Checklists/Checklists.htm. Accessed September 18, 2008.
3. Schwartz GF, Lagios MD, Carter D, et al. Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 1997;80:1798-1802.
4. Apple SK. Variability in gross and microscopic pathology reporting in excisional biopsies of breast cancer tissue. Breast J. 2006;12:145-149.
5. Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853-a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3381-3387.
6. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:586-597.
7. Cheng L, Al-Kaisi NK, Gordon NH, Liu AY, Gebrail F, Shenk RR. Relationship between the size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and residual disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1356-1360.
8. Di Saverio S, Catena F, Santini D, et al. 259 patients with DCIS of the breast applying USC/Van Nuys prognostic index: a retrospective review with long term follow up. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;109:404-416.
9. MacDonald HR, Silverstein MJ, Mabry H, et al. Local control in ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision alone: incremental benefit of larger margins. Am J Surg. 2005;190:521-525.
10. Sigal-Zafrani B, Lewis JS, Clough KB, et al, for the Institut Curie Breast Study Group. Histologic margin assessment for breast ductal carcinoma in situ: precision and implications. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:81-88.
11. Saqi A, Osborne MP, Rosenblatt R, Shin SJ, Hoda SA. Quantifying mammary duct carcinoma in situ: a wild-goose chase? Am J Clin Pathol. 2000; 113(suppl 1):S30-S37.
12. Clingan R, Griffen M, Phillips J, et al. Potential margin distortion in breast tissue by specimen mammography. Arch Surg. 2003;138:1371-1374.
13. Graham RA, Homer MJ, Katz J, et al. The pancake phenomenon contributes to the inaccuracy of margin assessment in patients with breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2002;184:89-93.
14. Dadmanesh F, Fan X, Dastane A, Amin MB, Bose S. Comparative analysis of size estimation by mapping and counting number of blocks with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:26-30.
15. Grin A, Horne G, Ennis M, O'Malley FP. Measuring extent of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens: a comparison of 4 methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:31-37.
16. Gauthier ML, Berman HK, Miller C, et al. Abrogated response to cellular stress identifies DCIS associated with subsequent tumor events and defines basal like breast tumors. Cancer Cell. 2007;12:479-491.