Prediction model for extensive ductal carcinoma in situ around early-stage invasive breast cancer

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 51, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 462-468

  Knuttel, Floortje M ^a   Van Der Velden, Bas H M ^b   Loo, Claudette E ^c   Elias, Sjoerd G ^a   Wesseling, Jelle ^c   Van Den Bosch, Maurice A A J ^a   Gilhuijs, Kenneth G A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast conserving surgery; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prediction model; Resection margins

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER STAGING; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; FIBROGLANDULAR TISSUE; GLAND TISSUE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LOCAL EXCISION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84957827913     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000255     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Harper S, Lynch J, Meersman SC, et al. Trends in area-socioeconomic and raceethnic disparities in breast cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, screening, mortality, and survival among women ages 50 years and over (1987-2005). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:121-131.
2. Kuhl CK. The changing world of breast cancer: a radiologist's perspective. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:615-628.
3. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, et al. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2304-2310.
4. BarentszMW, Postma EL, van Dalen T, et al. Prediction of positive resection margins in patients with non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41: 106-112.
5. Jung W, Kang E, Kim SM, et al. Factors associated with re-excision after breastconserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Breast Cancer. 2012;15: 412-419.
6. Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, et al. Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1615-1620.
7. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology- American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1507-1515.
8. Sinn HP, Anton HW, Magener A, et al. Extensive and predominant in situ component in breast carcinoma: their influence on treatment results after breastconserving therapy. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:646-653.
9. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, et al. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:717-730.
10. Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic outcome and complication risk after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:356-363.
11. D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
12. Pediconi F, Miglio E, Telesca M, et al. Effect of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on surgical decision making and cancer recurrence rates. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:128-135.
13. Holland R, Hendriks JH, Vebeek AL, et al. Extent, distribution, andmammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 1990;335: 519-522.
14. Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2005;11:382-390.
15. Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, et al. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology. 2008;246:116-124.
16. Fancellu A, Turner RM, Dixon JM, et al. Meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative breastMRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg. 2015;102:883-893.
17. Faverly DR, Hendriks JH, Holland R. Breast carcinomas of limited extent: frequency, radiologic-pathologic characteristics, and surgical margin requirements. Cancer. 2001;91:647-659.
18. Schnitt SJ, Harris JR. Evolution of breast-conserving therapy for localized breast cancer. J ClinOncol. 2008;26:1395-1396.
19. Pengel KE, Loo CE, Teertstra HJ, et al. The impact of preoperativeMRI on breastconserving surgery of invasive cancer: a comparative cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:161-169.
20. Pengel KE, Loo CE, Wesseling J, et al. Avoiding preoperative breast MRI when conventional imaging is sufficient to stage patients eligible for breast conserving therapy. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:273-278.
21. Alderliesten T, Schlief A, Peterse J, et al. Validation of semiautomatic measurement of the extent of breast tumors using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:42-49.
22. van der Velden BH, Dmitriev I, Loo CE, et al. Association between parenchymal enhancement of the contralateral breast in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and outcome of patients with unilateral invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2015;276:675-685.
23. Klifa C, Carballido-Gamio J, Wilmes L, et al. Quantification of breast tissue index fromMRdata using fuzzy clustering. Conf Proc IEEE EngMed Biol Soc. 2004;3: 1667-1670.
24. Gilhuijs KG, Giger ML, Bick U. Computerized analysis of breast lesions in three dimensions using dynamic magnetic-resonance imaging. Med Phys. 1998;25:1647-1654.
25. Hylton NM. Vascularity assessment of breast lesions with gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1999;7:411-420.
26. Aspegren K, Holmberg L, Adami HO. Standardization of the surgical technique in breast-conserving treatment of mammary cancer. Br J Surg. 1988;75:807-810.
27. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with longterm follow-up. Histopathology. 1991;19:403-410.
28. Enders CK. A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling. 2001;8:128-141.
29. Wold S, EsbensenK, Geladi P. Principal component analysis. Chemometrics Intell Lab Syst. 1987;2:37-52.
30. Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull. 1974;81:358.
31. Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:W1-W73.
32. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr, Borsboom GJ, et al. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:774-781.
33. Jorns JM, Visscher D, Sabel M, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of margins in breast conserving surgery significantly decreases reoperative rates: one-year experience at an ambulatory surgical center. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138:657-669.
34. D'Halluin F, Tas P, Rouquette S, et al. Intra-operative touch preparation cytology following lumpectomy for breast cancer: a series of 400 procedures. Breast. 2009;18:248-253.
35. Erickson-Bhatt SJ, Nolan RM, Shemonski ND, et al. Real-time imaging of the resection bed using a handheld probe to reduce incidence of microscopic positive margins in cancer surgery. Cancer Res. 2015;75:3706-3712.
36. Santamaría G, Velasco M, Farrús B, et al. Preoperative MRI of pure intraductal breast carcinoma-a valuable adjunct to mammography in assessing cancer extent. Breast. 2008;17:186-194.
37. Amano G, OhuchiN, Ishibashi T, et al. Correlation of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with precise histopathological map concerning carcinoma extension in the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;60:43-55.
38. Nori J, Meattini I, Giannotti E, et al. Role of preoperative breastMRI in ductal carcinoma in situ for prediction of the presence and assessment of the extent of occult invasive component. Breast J. 2014;20:243-248.
39. Kim SA, Cho N, Ryu EB, et al. Background parenchymal signal enhancement ratio at preoperative MR imaging: association with subsequent local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ after breast conservation surgery. Radiology. 2014;270:699-707.
40. Somerville JE, Clarke LA, Biggart JD. c-erbB-2 overexpression and histological type of in situ and invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 1992;45:16-20.
41. Park K, Han S, Kim HJ, et al. HER2 status in pure ductal carcinoma in situ and in the intraductal and invasive components of invasive ductal carcinoma determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Histopathology. 2006;48:702-707.
42. Allred DC, Clark GM, Molina R, et al. Overexpression of HER-2/neu and its relationship with other prognostic factors change during the progression of in situ to invasive breast cancer. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:974-979.
43. Harada S, Mick R, Roses RE, et al. The significance of HER-2/neu receptor positivity and immunophenotype in ductal carcinoma in situ with early invasive disease. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104:458-465.
44. Wang SY, Shamliyan T, Virnig BA, et al. Tumor characteristics as predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:1-14.
45. Park CC, Rembert J, Chew K, et al. High mammographic breast density is independent predictor of local but not distant recurrence after lumpectomy and radiotherapy for invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:75-79.
46. Chen X, Yuan Y, Gu Z, et al. Accuracy of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status between core needle and open excision biopsy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134:957-967.
47. DzierzanowskiM, Melville KA, Barnes PJ, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ in core biopsies containing invasive breast cancer: correlation with extensive intraductal component and lumpectomy margins. J Surg Oncol. 2005;90:71-76.
48. Partridge SC, McDonald ES. Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: protocol optimization, interpretation, and clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2013;21:601-624.
49. Bickel H, Pinker-Domenig K, Bogner W, et al. Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for the differentiation of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:95-100.
50. Barentsz MW, Taviani V, Chang JM, et al. Assessment of tumor morphology on diffusion-weighted (DWI) breastMRI: diagnostic value of reduced field of view DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42:1656-1665.